Ven. Sujato (trans.) Salla Sutta (SuttaCentral.net) edited by Dhr. Seven, Wisdom Quarterly
“Mendicants, an unlearned ordinary person feels pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings. A learned noble disciple [one anywhere along the four stages of enlightenment] also feels pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings. What, then, is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an ordinary unlearned person?”
“Our teachings are rooted in the Buddha. …”
“When an unlearned ordinary person experiences painful physical feelings, she or he sorrows and wails and laments, beating the breast and falling into confusion. One experiences two feelings, physical and mental.
One is bad enough. Why make it worse?
“It is like a person who is struck by an arrow only to be struck with a second arrow. That person experiences the feeling of two arrows.
“In the same way, when an unlearned ordinary person experiences painful physical feelings, one sorrows and wails and laments, beating one’s breast and falling into confusion. One experiences two feelings, physical and mental.
“When one is touched by painful feeling, one resists it. The underlying tendency for revulsion [aversion, resistance, hate, dosa] towards painful feeling underlies that.
“When touched by painful feeling, one looks forward to enjoying sensual pleasures. Why is that? It is because an unlearned ordinary person does not understand any other escape from painful feeling apart from [the temporary and unfulfilling distraction of] sensual pleasures.
“Since one looks forward to enjoying sensual pleasures, the underlying tendency to greed [lust, craving, grasping, clinging, lobha] for pleasant feeling underlies that.
“One does not truly understand feelings’ origin, disappearance, gratification, drawback, and escape. The underlying tendency to ignorance [delusion, confusion, wrong view, moha] about neutral feeling underlies that.
“If one feels a pleasant feeling, one feels it attached. If one feels a painful feeling, one feels it attached. If one feels a neutral feeling, one feels it attached.
“One is called an unlearned ordinary person who is attached [clinging] to rebirth, old age, and death, to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress, one who is attached to suffering [disappointment, unsatisfactoriness], I say.
Noble disciples
“When a learned noble disciple experiences painful physical feelings, one does not sorrow nor wail nor lament, beating one’s breast and falling into confusion. One experiences one feeling: physical, not mental.
“It is like a person who is struck by an arrow but not struck by a second arrow. That person would only experience the feeling of one arrow.
“In the same way, when a learned noble disciple experiences painful physical feelings, one does not sorrow nor wail nor lament, beating the breast and falling into confusion. One experiences one feeling, physical, not mental.
“When one is touched by painful feeling, one does not resist it. There is no underlying tendency for revulsion towards painful feeling underlying that.
“When touched by painful feeling, one does not look forward to enjoying sensual pleasures. Why is that? It is because a learned noble disciple understands an escape from painful feeling apart from sensual pleasures.
“Since one does not look forward to enjoying sensual pleasures, there is no underlying tendency to greed for pleasant feeling underlying that.
“One truly understands feelings’ origin, disappearance, gratification, drawback, and escape. There is no underlying tendency to ignorance about neutral feeling underlying that.
“If one feels a pleasant feeling, one feels it detached. If one feels a painful feeling, one feels it detached. If one feels a neutral feeling, one feels it detached.
“One is called a learned noble disciple who is detached from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress, one who is detached from suffering, I say.
“This is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an unlearned ordinary person.
If life is so short, what truly matters? Buddhist wisdom
(Buddhism Podcast) Buddhism Explained. In a world where everything fades—youth, success, even our own identity—what truly matters? This video explores the Buddhist teaching of impermanence (anicca, pronounced /AH-knee-chah/, that everything is in constant flux, hurtling towards destruction) and how it can help us live with clarity, peace, and freedom.
Drawing from the Noble Eightfold Path, the true nature of the self, and the roots of suffering, it offers not just reflection, but a way to live meaningfully—especially in the face of constant change.
00:00 - The One Truth No One Can Escape
03:32 - The Shadow We Mistake for Ourselves
07:46 - Why Letting Go Isn't Loss – It's Freedom
11:15 - The Noble Eightfold Path: Living with Clarity, Not Control
17:25 - What Truly Matters: Freedom from Suffering
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, Sanskritatman, 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.
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, 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
Of course, there are ways in which we ARE all one, all the same, all connected, and that is almost certainly what most people mean most of the time when saying, "We are all one." To say we are separate is obvious. You're over there, I'm over here, and we are in no way connected whatsoever -- except that we're breathing the same air, exchanging the same ions, sharing the same environment, eating the same sustenance, digesting it in the same way, culturally validating one another by contrast and comparison, using nearly identical bodies in roughly the same ways, appearing as twins or clones of one another to anyone standing at a sufficient distance, and so on and so forth.
Is it useful to tell Jews harming Palestinians, "We are all One"? Yes, for if they knew the similarities, they would not harm themselves (by trying to harm the other). Is it useful to tell scientists look at a single blob under a microscope, "It is all one"? No because under a microscope one is looking for distinctions and differences to compartmentalize and categorize. Can we see similarities? Yes. Can we see differences? Yes. What are we looking at? Could the Buddha? Yes. What was he looking at?
So except for all of those ways in which we are all one, and too many more to mention, we are not all one. We're in the same boat, searching for the same things, going about it in similar ways, thinking each other's thoughts, having each other's ideas, feeling each other's feelings (like suffering, joy, empathy), mirroring one another, and so on. So the question is, Is there any value in seeing ourselves as separate? (There certainly is value in seeing ourselves as One, as part of the same whole, as interconnected and interdependent).
Of course, it's useful to see the distinctions and rather than relying on this Hindu saying "We are all One," it's useful to see the Path the Buddha taught to awakening here and now in this very life. Waking up to what? Waking up to the true nature of reality. It is not what we expect, and it may just take a shock like this to push us out of our comfort zone to investigate and penetrate for ourselves what is ultimately true.
There are two truths, the conventional (the way we speak using everyday terms) and the ultimate (the technical details which often up-end the conventional ways of viewing things).
The Buddha never taught: We are all One
Ego Podcast (Buddhism) Dec. 20, 2024: Did the historical Buddha (Siddhartha "Shakyamuni" Gautama) teach that "We are all One"?
This video explores the misattributed idea of universal Oneness (a more Hindu idea of nonduality or advaita) in Buddhism. Drawing from the Buddha’s Teachings, the Dhamma, let's discuss why the concept of Oneness is considered an extreme view and how it contradicts the path to awakening.
With references to key suttas (discourses), we reveal why seeing all things as separate — not One — is essential for clear knowledge and bringing about the end of suffering.
Discover the true wisdom behind the Buddha’s Teachings and why they go beyond simplistic notions of Oneness.
(@russellmason5095) Thank you so much for producing this video. It helped me to reconsider some points of ignorance about Oneness and Gautama Buddha's original teaching. Good luck on your path! Thank you for your efforts to bring an end to suffering.
(@IamMae72)
This channel explains things in such a precise and clear way.
(@annieyip2176) (edited)
Not easy to understand Dependent Origination [Dependent Co-Arising] correctly but I applaud your attempt to discern Oneness from interconnectedness
(@WisdomLife9)
What a great and useful video! Thanks. I will follow your channel for more interesting videos, stories!
(@avinashjagdeo)
This perspective is so much centered on the physical, which is a very narrow band of existence that some are passing through. If we are experiencing eating, then that is to know eating and to know being eaten. There is no evidence that all things at all levels have to eat or that we will always have to operate that particular way. There appears to be constant transformation which can include merging and diverging of consciousness. The word 'oneness' is just a concession of a finite mind to talk about a something that is beyond conceptualization. It could just as easily be called the 'all' or the 'totality' or 'infinite being'.
(@collinsharrelson6887) (edited)
I do have a feeling we’re all one in the sense that we share in our conscious awareness with all other conscious beings. I mean just think about it. We’re all experiencing a base level conscious awareness so in an intrinsic way we are related. Furthermore, we all suffer the same fate (i.e., Old Age, Sickness, and Death), which means we all share in the same suffering and are all deserving of one another’s compassion because of that fact.
(@noself-onlykarma) (edited)
When you realize the Absolute Truth the Buddha was pointing to, you see why he used the word "Middle Way" vs. "Advaita" (non-duality). Too many people conceptualize, analyze, and interpret the Buddha's teachings intellectually. The teaching of Anatta/Anatman [the impersonal nature of all things] is meant to dissolve any types of identification since there's no inherent independent entity/identity (self). The entirety of everything depends on the entirety itself, so everything is interdependent. However, if you "identify" the entirety as "one" then you've fallen into relative conceptualization. How can you have "one" when there's no "two"? That's why we use the word "is-ness" or "thus-ness" to describe the reality. The Absolute Reality is already Here and Now. We just have to realize it through directly seeing that all that can be claimed is the witness itself (only awareness functioning). [There is n]othing to claim as subject therefore, no object. Then you see there's nothing we can [identify with or] be identified with. Even Buddha-Nature is a conceptual description, just a word to the many who only think in a linear way and see everything as existing independently. The reason we can't find our "mind" is because it is not a "thing," not even a subject. It's wrong to say it exists; it is wrong to say it doesn't exist. Neither both nor "one" is correct since they're all conceptual. Start with moral/ethical discipline and compassion for all sentient beings. Then discipline your mind to be focused (still/concentrated) so you can rest the thinking-mind. Then the wisdom (absolute reality) that has always been radiating is (infinite) Here and (eternal) Now.
(@tanned06) Perhaps contrary to the early teachings preserved in the Pali canon suttas and Chinese Āgamas, the later development of Buddhist philosophy in Mahayana and Vajrayana [being so heavily influenced by Vedantic Hinduism] does recognize an ontological/metaphysical conception of allness/oneness as in realization of the pure consciousness/awareness or the hidden away Tathagathagarbha or the potent Buddha Nature/dhatu or the cleansed Alayaviñāna that's said to form the source of ultimate and peaceful ground of all [being and/or] 'beings.'
(@thekaizer666) (edited)
thank you for this.
thanks for confirming all of these which i had contemplated, even before discovering Theravada.
thank you. PS: In Mahayana/ Vajrayana, one of the central concepts is that of "we are all one," such that a wave is part of the ocean. And it just felt so very...full of friction. Like many, I started off with Mahayana/Vajrayana but steadily got disillusioned with so many of their doctrines. :(
(@kib3571) When view is no view, only then you can see what everything is happening. 😅
(@duanpienaar9755) We are one consciousness not one karmic body. The Buddha taught that the consciousness that realizes Buddha Nature is one.
(@ElmerTan-ut4qn) The Buddha told us that people's relationship in the world is only for a very short period of time. A person dies. Each has its own path. And the majority of people are dragged away by their karmas. Even if they ever meet again, they would not be able to recognize each other. Once reborn in the Six Realms, the soul [??] will take on a new form. For example, we are now human, but the next life we may be in the lower three realms as animals, ghosts, or suffering beings in hell[s]. Those who cultivate kindness and compassion, they will have a beautiful appearance in their next life as a human. Those who are full of ignorance, they will have the appearance of an animal that is worse than human. Those who are full of greed, hatred, and delusion, their appearance will be like a ghost, which is worse than the animals. The Six Realms is the cycle of vengeance and revenge. Nobody can help you. [Many can help, not that they will. The Buddha helped countless beings.] Each has to bear its own karma [but not alone but rather in the company of others]. This is the true reality of life in the Six Realms of reincarnation [rebirth]. Why is one reborn again and again in the Six Realms? It is because we love this world too much and create a strong clinging. If we have no clinging for this world, we won't be reborn again into this world. If one chooses Western Pure Land for one's next life, then we have to chant Amitabha Buddha, that is, if one really wants to migrate there. No one can bring you to the Land of Ultimate Bliss except Amitabha Buddha himself [but remember nobody can help you, oh, except Amitabha Buddha and your family and friends and strangers who are kind, and bodhisattvas, and people and devas from long ago past connections with you in the Six Realms, but other than those, no one can help you because you are all alone and by yourself]. 🙏🙏🙏 Amitabha Buddha
Think about it. An enlightened* person not knowing she's enlightened is not that bad, but an unenlightened person thinking he is, that's not good. That's wrong view that could lead to trouble.
*Enlightened: Aryan, the Noble Ones, those along any of the any of the stages of awakening, meaning the various kinds of stream enterers, once returners, non-returners, and the fully enlightened arhats, which some could argue are the only real "enlightened" (bodhi) ones.
By practice, an ordinary human can reach it.
There is a strange characteristic feature of enlightened persons. Look within and check for it: They don't compare themselves to others. This is odd because, are they better or worse than others? They don't know in the sense that it does not occur to them to think it, ponder it, ask, or make comparison. (They're better, of course, from our point of view but not from theirs).
Do they have an inferiority complex, a superiority complex, or do they see themselves as EQUAL to others? Go back to the key sentence. They don't compare themselves to others and, therefore, they are neither nor the other. This was mind-blowing to see because, well surely from their point of view, the "nice" thing would be to think themselves equal to us, the lowly uninstructed (and therefore ignorant) worldlings.
"Ignorant" sounds bad, but it just means we don't know yet, so it includes everyone. Even God (Brahma, Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh, Allah, Asherah, Astarte, El, Elohim, Demiurge, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.) is not omniscient, but there are two kinds of buddhas who may be, the samma-sam-buddha and the pacceka-buddha, the "supremely enlightened" and the "silent (nonteaching) enlightened." The Buddha was the first kind, and it is said that he could lay claim to being omniscient not in the sense that he knew everything all the but in the sense that he could know anything he put his mind to. (Things are not fixed, so did he really know what was going to happen or only what was most likely to happen?)
And this brings us to the next point, which is equally view-shattering: Do regular fully enlightened arhats know everything? I mean, it says "fully" right in their title, and if they have no ignorance, they must have full knowledge. No, they do not, far from it.
Not only can arhats likely not explain Buddhism, they may not know much of anything else (academic subjects, life lessons, trivia). They just happen to know the most important things, that which the Buddha was wise enough to winnow out and focus on. All the other things might be nice, but they are not essential for waking up.
In Goenka's book, there's a wonderful parable called "Swimology." It goes something like this: One day, as the ship is about to leave safe harbor for the open seas, the young captain on his maiden voyage takes on an older able-bodied sailor who looks like he's been at sea all his life. The ship soon runs into trouble and gets lost. The captain consults the old sailor for help reading the map. But that salty seadog snaps back: "I don't know mapology!" The captain says, "You travel the sea but can't read a map? You wasted a quarter of your life!" In the hot sun, the men run out of water and start complaining. The captain asks the old sailor to fix the cistern, but he snaps back: "I don't know hydrology." The captain says, "You live on a ship depending on water, but you never learned plumbing? You wasted two quarters of your life!" Before long, they're completely lost, going in circles, running out of supplies. The captain orders him to grab a sextant to help navigate by the stars. The old sailor snaps back: "I don't know astrology!" The captain says, "You live under starry skies, and you can't read them for guidance? You wasted three quarters of your life!" At daybreak they spot land, but the captain being in a rush hits the rocks. The ship is wrecked and taking on water. The old sailor runs to the wheel to ask the captain, "Did you study swimology?" "What's that?" asks the captain. The old sailor yells for everyone to jump overboard and abandon ship. The ignorant old sailor, who never had an academic education, did study one thing and knew enough to save himself. He snapped back at the captain: "This ship is going down! Everyone who can swim can make it safely to shore. Those who can't are going to drown. You learned all those fancy ologies but skipped the most crucial lesson for a life at sea -- to be able to make to safety! You wasted your whole life!"
So here we are, lost in Samsara (the Ocean of Life and Death), bobbing up and down about to drown, wasting our time swirling in confusion, asking so many questions about this, that, and the other, but never focusing on the most essential, the Dhamma (what the Buddha taught concerning the Seven Requisites of Enlightenment for salvation, for utter liberation or moksha). Like the captain, we're Smart Alecs with degrees in all kinds of ologies except the most valuable kind: Dharma Studies.
[By the way, WHO can become enlightened? Any human or deva of average intelligence, no special quality necessary excepts, perhaps, having the karmic good fortune of coming into contact with the Buddha's Doctrine and Discipline (Dhamma-Vinaya). Sincerity is essential, and my teacher speculates that paramis (kusala-karma) are important, which he defines as "anything good done in the past with the idea of reaching enlightenment (bodhi) or nirvana (nibbana)."]
Arr eu shur? Ai'm thee gretest g'nius.
I always imagined that when I became enlightened, I would go over to the university, convene a meeting of professors, researchers, scholars, and academics and solve their biggest problems for them.
Yes, Einstein?
Yez, vell, vee kno thut E=mc2...
Ugh, actually, Albie, you left out ether (e) which accounts for your imprecision. So I want you to get back to the drawing board, confer to Nikola Tesla (he's in Dimension 7, Quadrant 5) and you should be able to see the error of your ways and get back to Earth to clean up the mess.
That's not what you had, Steve, and your idea that...
Yes, Witten, why are you interrupting? Your view of string theory is all in knots, but here's how to resolve the equations...
I guess it's a silly thought, and it's completely wrong. What an enlightened person comes to know, overcoming all ignorance on these four things, can be summarized in the Four Enlightened (Noble) Truths:
what disappointment is,
its cause,
its full resolution, and
the path to that end.
Though such beings have glimpsed these things directly, that is not to say they can in any way articulate it for others. They might be able to. It would certainly be good to hear them, but they may not be inclined to speak about it at all.
For example, many monks in the Thai Forest Tradition are said to have gained realization, but are they able to explain it or effectively teach it to others to the point that that person experiences the liberating truth? That's very rare.
Ajahn Chah was able to, but are his accomplished students? Maybe Ajahn Brahm or Ajahn Sumedho. Why aren't they all famous with large retinues of noble disciples. The great Ajahn Jumnien personally knows more than most beings, but can he communicate it effectively?
The great Pa Auk Sayadaw, the Burmese meditation master, is rare among all Buddhist monastics in that he is both a scholar and an adept practitioner. He can teach it.
He is nevertheless limited by his students' limitations. He cannot impart it, nor can he read minds or flex the magical iddhi powers that might help him teach. He can advise, guide, reproach, encourage but he is without the iddhi powers to do more.
The Buddha had iddhi powers at his disposal. And using them he could not, as it were, get a horse to drink water though it had been led right to the refreshing stream.
In the simplest terms, since we have defined "enlightened" (bodhi) to mean "having reached any of the stages of enlightenment, one need only concern oneself with the first stage: get there, and everything will be all right within seven lives. Of course, reaching it, there's no reason to stop. Keep striving, or start striving now that you are 100% sure what the Buddha taught is real and works.
For simplicity let's say there are four such stages, though the Path of Freedom (Vimuttimagga) lists the other kinds of stream enterers -- and an additional two kinds of preenlightened folks, the saddhānusārī and dhammānusārī (confidence-devotee rooted in faith and Dharma-devotee rooted in wisdom). What are the characteristics of the person who has undergone that stage (knowing-and-seeing described in two parts as path-and-fruit)?
The stream enterer is the first person to be safe in this interminable sojourn, this samsara, this Wheel of Life and Death, for this person has for the first time in all these aeons put a limit on suffering (dukkha). Other beings may go on suffering for as far as the mind can see, but such a noble one now has to endure no more than seven rebirths. And all of these rebirths will be on the human plane or higher, never lower. This is one of the wonders of enlightenment.
Now, indeed, what could go wrong? Nothing that happens can matter much because one is sure to get out. For example, say we were all serving life sentences and one of us got a reprieve, a pardon, and held a letter for the warden that had to be heeded. That person is already free in theory and now need only wrap it up and go from our h*ll hole or choose to stay longer to help others, or putter about, or fulfill karmic obligations and promises or waste away on trivialities like more sensual enjoyments for their own sake (though how this is done if one knows better is hard to fathom).
One wrong view many hold, which seems to be a part of Theravada (Pali canon) lore, is that a stream enterer can do no moral wrong. This is completely mistaken. There are certainly at least five things one cannot do, but everything else, it's possible. (Those five cannot be done because they would entail an immediate result in the very next rebirth on a subhuman plane, which now one is no longer liable to fall into). For evidence that such exalted beings can behave badly, be immoral, do wrong, be bad, commit an offense, one need only read the Ratana Sutta ("Jewel Sutra"). Though one engages in whatever misconduct, one will nevertheless not fall into worlds more miserable than this, nor will one reappear anywhere more than seven more times.
Furthermore, of course stream enterers can have lapses if even arhats might violate Monastic Disciplinary Code rules, which are listed indicating which rules those are that even an arhat might slip up on.
Of course, it must be that this does not sound good to most people -- who are people (human or deva) because they are beset by greed (lust, attraction, clinging), hatred (aversion, fear), and delusion (wrong view, ignorance) -- because we want to go on, have more rebirths (ignorant of the countless number that have already transpired and the countless yet to come as we engage in karma and those deeds work themselves out).
When one knows-and-sees, directly has knowledge-and-vision of some past lives and how this life and this present suffering came to be (which is the knowledge that arises from the practice of Dependent Origination, which most people do not know is a practice rather than a theory), one will be able to let go.
Moksha or liberation is possible by letting go, but letting go is only really possible as a result of knowing-and-seeing. So it is not willpower or brute force or strong determination (a triumph of will) that does it. It is practice (bhavana, kammatthana, sadhana) that brings about knowledge and vision. For instance, say you had a warm bowl of rice in the dark and would not part with it for the world, not to give away not even to share with anyone. And someone told you to throw it away. You would think them mad. Throw away this thing I'm about to devour and have so much greed/attraction for that I don't even want to share a grain of it with anyone else? You cling to the rice bowl. And again the person advises, admonishes, and asks you to let go and toss it. Do you? Could you? Do you possess the faith (saddha) to take that person's word for it and do it? Probably not. So what is it going to take that person to have to do since words won't work? What now if that person were to get you to turn on the light or bring a candle or step out of the dark and look into the bowl? And say that in doing so, you were to perceive what was really there all along -- maggots not rice grains? How hard would it be to let go now, how hard to throw away, toss, discard, abandon? Not hard at all, right? It takes no willpower, no force, no faith even. What does it take? Knowing-and-seeing, direct perception for oneself so that one need never rely on another for what is true and what is not.
How does that tie in? We have lust. Who or what do we lust after? Beautiful objects. Why are they "beautiful"? It is exactly because we do not see their true nature but just their appearance. Skin is beautiful, complexion, hair, scent, softness... How deeply do we need to look into it to see what's really there? Worms, blood, flesh, gore, guts, partly digested food, mucus, urine, oil, feces... Ahhh! How fast can you let go?
One cannot do it fast enough -- and with no willpower, no force, no sense of loss, no triumph of will, not even any faith. Faith can be a great thing but, ultimately, it is not the necessary and sufficient thing. It is excellent for starters, but we need to know and see for ourselves. That is what the Buddha promises. That is the path to enlightenment.
With the attainment of stream entry, these mental defilements go away:
With the attainment of stream entry, one will instantly gain unshakeable faith in three things: the Teacher, the Teaching, and those successfully Taught (Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha). Why? It is because now one knows for sure that they were all three right.
Through the path of stream entry (stream-winning, sotāpatti-magga) one "becomes" free (whereas by realizing the fruition, one "is" free) from the first three fetters (samyojana) that bind beings to existence in the Sensual Sphere, namely:
(1) personality-view (sakkāya-ditthi; see ditthi),
(3) attachment to mere rules and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa; see clinging upādāna).
The seven groups (sets) of noble disciples are as follows:
(1) the faith-devotee (saddhānusārī),
(2) the faith-liberated one (saddhāvimutta),
(3) the body-witness (kāya-sakkhī),
(4) the both-ways-liberated one (ubhato-bhāga-vimutta),
(5) the Dhamma-devotee (dhammānusārī),
(6) the vision-attainer (ditthippatta),
(7) the wisdom-liberated one (paññā-vimutta).
What is the significance of these groupings? I've asked Bhikkhu Bodhi and other scholar-monks only to hear that there are limited references in the Pali canon. They offer hope because it is said by some (mentioned in Ven. Bodhi's endnotes to his Middle Length Discourses (Majjhima Nikaya) translation) that such beings as 1 and 5 will not pass away until becoming stream enterers. Why this is said or what the proper understanding is remains to be seen. (Dhamma-viyama is a strange and fascinating subject).
What if a better list of the "noble ones" can be argued for: (1) saddhānusārī (the faith-devotee who will not pass until attainment), dhammānusārī (the Dharma-devotee who will not pass until attainment), (3) the stream enterer (who is now destined to no more than seven rebirths), (4) the once-returner (who will return to this world at most one more time but will be reborn in the Pure Abodes and make final attainments there), (5) the non-returner (who will no longer be reborn on the human plane but in the Pure Abodes until final attainments), (6) the arhat with remainder (still in human form, experiencing the results of past karma, making no new karma only kriya), (7) the arhat without remainder (no longer in form of any kind, no longer experiencing any karmic results, utterly freed from delusion, having entered final-nirvana). (The suggestion that the "change of lineage" or gotrabhu is another "noble one" makes no sense since all of the noble ones are this. The reason there are four stages yet "eight individuals" is because they are distinguished between path (magga) moment and fruition (phala) moment, which by orthodox tradition is explained as meaning one nanosecond of difference as one mind-moment (citta) supplants the previous one and one goes from gaining the path and experiencing the moment or change of lineage inherent in gaining the path-moment. It is not a satisfying explanation for such a big distinction as to list Eight Individuals among the "Noble or Enlightened Ones."
So to answer the question, "How to know if I'm enlightened?" it's as easy as 1-2-3 (which is not to say it's easy to reach, because it is extremely rare, but easy enough to know for yourself):
Do I have perfect, unshakeable faith (confidence, conviction) in the Triple Gem or "Three Jewels" (Buddha, Dhamma, and Noble Sangha, the Teacher, Teaching, and the successfully Taught), because I have glimpsed nirvana and seen what they had seen (when we were all set free by the Truth)?
Am I no longer inclined, and does it no longer make sense, to compare self to others (seeing as how one has understood it is all impersonal and there is no self, no ego, no soul to cling to but there is, and one has directly seen, that all things arise based on Dependent Origination with the sole exception of nirvana, which is the only thing that is not a "thing," not a constituent composite, not a conditioned phenomenon, and is therefore called the "unconditioned element" or the asankhata dhatu)?
And have I irreversibly put an end to three of the defilements/hindrances: personality-view, skeptical doubt, and clinging to mere rites and rituals as if they could ever bring about enlightenment.
NOTE: As for morality and monastic rules (vinaya), there are different lists of what we might generally call "defilements," such as: āsava, kilesa, nivarana, samyojana, and very generally the Three Roots or Three Poisons. They are all overcome by an arhat. More
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
%20wiki.jpeg)
