4 'enlightened' masters who went 'insane'

(Asangoham) Four "enlightened" masters who went completely "insane"

Alan Watts' last radio interview (audio)

Alan Watts via Alan Watts Forum (reddit.com); Seth Auberon, Ashley Wells (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

The 1960s were a time of tripping and self-inquiry, which Alan Watts helped.

I am that I am? Buddhism's No-Self Teaching

Seekertoseeker.com (YouTube), Oct. 9, 2021; Dhr. Seven (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly

"I Am That" | about a nun's awakening to life | Prime Video (amazon.com)

I thought I was consciousness itself. Isn't it so?

(SEEKER TO SEEKER) One says, "I am," but what does the word "I" refer to? According to the Buddhist Teaching of No-Self (the Anatta Doctrine), to answer this question correctly is to reach enlightenment and liberation.

It is to reach the end of all disappointment, suffering, pain, and unhappiness. To answer this is to explore the Buddha's teaching of the Five Aggregates (skandhas or khandhas), the categorical constituents of the ego, self, or soul:

1. form (body)
2. feeling (sensation)
3. perception (cognition)
4. formations (will)
5. consciousness (awareness).

This teaching is variously called anatta (Pali), anatman (Sanskrit), no-self, non-self, impersonality, soullessness, egolessness.

The essence of the teaching is that enlightenment (bodhi, awakening) and liberation (moksha, nirvana) come about when one realizes that every view of the self we can have is a wrong view.

When one lets go of grasping, of falsely identifying with the contents of experience, only then can one put an end to all suffering (dukkha) once and for all. That is bliss, this is peace, that is ultimate truth and happiness the Buddha called nirvana.

• Why did God call itself “I AM THAT I AM”? (chicagobible.org)
• Hebrew: "I will become whatsoever I will become"/"Whatever"
• Facebook: facebook.com/groups/32571...
• Website: seekertoseeker.com
• To learn more about the Five Aggregates (pancha khandha) as found in the original Buddhist texts, visit: accesstoinsight.org
• For an in-depth study into the Buddhist no-self doctrine, see:
• Identity and Experience by Sue Hamilton
• Selfless Persons by Steven Collins

Alan Watts: What is Reality, what is Emptiness?

Alan Watts: "Reality" is not what we think (Is this a simulation?)

(T&H - Inspiration & Motivation) Alan Watts, the greatest Western translator of Eastern philosophy, gives different ways of looking at our world -- the way it really is as distinct from our commonplace distortions -- in one of his great lectures on reality versus maya (illusion). #simulation #reality #maya

Sutra on the Not-self Characteristic

Ven. Ñanamoli Thera (trans.), Anatta-Lakkhana Sutra: "The Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic (SN 22.59); Eliza Darcey, Dhr. Seven (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the "Resort of Seers"). There he addressed the meditators called the group of five [wandering ascetics]:

"Meditators!"

— "Venerable sir," they replied. Then the Blessed One said this:

1. "Meditators, form [the physical, the material, the tangible, body] is not self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could command of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form not be thus.' Since form is not self, it leads to affliction, and no one can command form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form not be thus.'
2. "Feeling is not self...
3. "Perception is not self...
4. "Determinations are not self...
5. "Consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could command consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness not be thus.' Since consciousness is not self, it leads to affliction, and no one can command consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness not be thus.'

"Meditators, how is one to conceive it: Is form permanent or impermanent?"

— "Impermanent, venerable sir."

— "Is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable sir."

— "Is what is impermanent -- and painful because it is subject to change -- fit to be regarded in this way: 'This is mine, this is I, this is myself'"?

— "No, venerable sir."

"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...

"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...

"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...

"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

— "Impermanent, venerable sir."

— "Is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?"

— "Painful, venerable sir."

— "Is what is impermanent -- and painful since it is subject to change -- fit to be regarded in this way: 'This is mine, this is I, this is myself'"?

— "No, venerable sir."

• "Not self" is at the heart of the Heart Sutra

"Therefore, meditators, any kind of form whatsoever -- whether past, future, or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether internal (of oneself) or external (of another), whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding of how it truly is, be regarded: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'
 
"Any kind of feeling whatsoever...

"Any kind of perception whatsoever...
 
"Any kind of determination whatsoever...

"Any kind of consciousness whatsoever -- whether past, future, or presently arisen -- whether gross or subtle, whether internal or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding of how it truly is, be regarded: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Meditators, when a noble [i.e., enlightened] follower who has heard (the truth, the Dharma) sees things [namely, the Five Aggregates Clung to as Self, as they truly are] in this way,

1. one finds estrangement in form,
2. one finds estrangement in feeling,
3. one finds estrangement in perception,
4. one finds estrangement in determinations,
5. one finds estrangement in consciousness.

"When one finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, one is liberated. When liberated, there is direct knowledge that one is liberated. One understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the pure life has been lived, what can be done has been done, of this [suffering in birth] there is no more beyond.'"

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

Now during this utterance, the hearts of the meditators of the group of five were liberated from taints through utterly letting go and clinging no more.

Not self: Why the Buddha still said "I" (sutra)

Maurice O'Connell Walshe (trans.), Arahan Sutra: "Arhat" (SN 1.25) edited and expanded by Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Crystal Quintero (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

The Buddha is golden and marked with a Vedic swastika, a traditionally auspicious symbol (appropriated by Hitler and Nazis) that indicates enlightenment/noble state of an arhat.

.

Perhaps Semjase the deva asked.

[A certain deva asked:]

 

One who is an arhat [Pali arahant],

Work complete [goal achieved],

Free from taints, clad in final body,

That person still might still use such words as "I,"

Still perchance might say: "They call this 'mine'."...

Would such a person be prone to these conceits?

• [WQ: There is no self. All things are impersonal, egoless, devoid of self ("empty"). There is no permanent thing in the Five Things Clung to as Self. An enlightened person, even at the first stage, directly realizes that and is thereby awakened, freed, liberated, emancipated, and makes an end of all suffering. So how can such a person still use the word "I" or speak of things as "mine"? This would be due to a very subtle habit of speaking in a non-ultimate or "conventional" way to get some meaning across and be understood. But there would be no chance of a fully enlightened person, like the Buddha or arhats, being confused by the use of such words or knowing them by direct insight to be illusory, vain, unreal. Why? It is because all "things" (dharmas) are marked by Three Characteristics of Existence: they are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal/empty.]

Oh, now that makes sense!

[The Blessed One/the Buddha answered:]

 

Bonds are gone for one free of all conceits.

All delusion's chains are cast aside:

Truly wise, one has gone beyond any such thoughts.

• Walshe 1: Yam matam, "whatever is thought." Mrs. Rhys Davids's emendation of yamatam in the text (paraphrased as "conceits and deemings of the errant mind," following the Commentarial maññanam "imagining").

Yet, that person still might use such words as "I,"
Still perchance might say: "They call this 'mine'."

Well aware of common worldly speech,

One would speak conforming to such use.

• Walshe 2: Cf. DN 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata ["the person who has arrived and who has gone beyond"] uses without misapprehending them." [There is a difference between common or "conventional" and "ultimate" truth/speech.]

What do you mean there's NO self?

What the h*ll are you talking about, Gautama?! The self is the eternal atman (soul)!

.

"All beings subsist on nutriment" (Khp 4).

• [That "nutriment" is not necessarily physical food but different sorts of things -- like one's latent store of karma, or joy for certain devas, or contact/sense impression.]

Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One, bowed, and sat respectfully to one side. As he sat there he ask the Blessed One: "A 'being' (satta or Sanskrit sattva] venerable sir, a 'being,' it is said, but to what extent is one said to be a 'being'?"

You'll see. The truth will set you free.

[The Buddha responded:] "Radha, any desire, passion, delight, or craving for [physical or fine-material] form, when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be a 'being' (satta).
 

"Radha, any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling (sensation)... perception... formations... consciousness, when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be a 'being'" (SN 23.2). 

• [What we call a living being is in fact a collection of groups that are clung to. Ignorance clings to them and takes them to be a "self, ego, soul, personality, or essence." They are not that, but the Enlightened One realized that these impersonal, impermanent, and unsatisfactory things (aggregates, heaps, constituents) are what beings cling to as a self. This is perhaps the hardest thing to understand in all of Buddhism, but it is what distinguishes an ordinary worldling from an enlightened (or noble and therefore liberated) one.]

"I am" is the greatest conceit. There is no self.

Few Buddhists seem to realize that in Mahayana Buddhism, the most famous apocryphal discourse is the Heart Sutra (Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sutra or Heart of Wisdom Discourse) tackles this deep, profound, subtle, and exceedingly difficult topic. All of the 100,000 lines are dedicated to explicating this teaching. But it is only the direct realization, the liberating insight into it, that liberates one. Upon realization, one becomes a stream enterer, the first stage of enlightenment. Without it, there is no Buddhist "enlightenment" (bodhi) and therefore no glimpse or touching of liberation (nirvana). There may be many things, but there will not be freedom from all suffering.

Who has abandoned the impurities?

Ven. Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary; Dhr. Seven, Ashley Wells (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Can I reach the first stage of enlightenment?

The "stream-winner" or "stream-enterer" (sotapanna) is the first and lowest of the eight Noble Ones or enlightened disciples.

Three kinds of stream-winners may be distinguished:

• one "with up to seven more rebirths"
• one "passing from one noble family to another"
• one "germinating only once more"

As it is said (e.g., Pug.37-39; A.III.87):

 

(1) "If a person, after the disappearance of the first three fetters [of the ten] (personality-belief, skeptical doubt, and attachment to rules and rituals), has entered the stream (to nirvana), that person is no longer subject to rebirth in any of the lower subhuman worlds.

"Instead, that person is firmly established (and can never fall below the human plane of existence), and is destined to full enlightenment (arhatship).

"After having passed among devas and human beings at most only seven more times more in the Round of Rebirths (samsara), that person puts an end to suffering once and for all. Such a person is called "one with up to seven more rebirths" (sattakkhattu-parama).

 

(2) "If a person, after the disappearance of the Three Fetters...is destined to full enlightenment, that person, after having passed among noble families two or three times in the Round of Rebirths, puts an end to all suffering. Such a person is called "one passing from one noble family to another" (kolankola).
 

(3) "If a person, after the disappearance of the Three Fetters...is destined to full enlightenment, that person, after having only once more returned to the human plane of existence, puts an end to all further suffering. Such a person is called "one germinating only once more"  (eka-bījī).

For further details, see the Sotāpatti-Samyutta (S.55).

Was the Buddha serious about "not-self"?

German Buddhist monk Ven. Nyanatiloka (Buddhist Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines), anatta entry edited by Dhr. Seven, CC Liu, Wisdom Quarterly

Anatta (Sanskrit an-atman) literally means "not-self," no-soul, egolessness, impersonality, selflessness.

It is the last -- and in some sense the most subtle and difficult to grasp -- of the Three Marks or Characteristics of Existence.

This teaching or doctrine of an-attā (not-self) states that neither within nor outside of the physical-and-mental phenomena of existence can there be found anything that -- in the ultimate sense -- can be regarded as a self, soul, self-existing ego-entity, or any other abiding essence.

 

This is the central doctrine of Buddhism. Without understanding it -- at least intellectually if not by penetrative insight [which destroys the delusion of compactness of self into its constituent parts, i.e., the Five Aggregates of Clinging], which would lead to enlightenment -- a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible.

• What are the requisites of Buddhist enlightenment?

It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, the unique teaching of all buddhas in history, with which the entire structure of Buddhist Teaching stands or falls.

This body, this breath being here now

All the remaining Buddhist doctrines might, more or less, be found in other philosophical systems or religions.

But the anattā-doctrine is clearly and unreservedly taught only by buddhas, which is why the historical Buddha (Prince Siddhartha Gautama or Shakyamuni) was known as the Anattā-vādi, or "Teacher of Impersonality."

 

Whoever has not penetrated the impersonal nature of all existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this process of continual arising and passing of physical-and-mental phenomena, and that there is no independent ego-entity (separate from the impersonal parts or aggregates of existence that constitute it) within or without the process, that person will be unable to understand Buddhism, namely, the profound depth of the Buddhist teaching of the Four Noble (Ennobling/Enlightening) Truths... More

A Day at the Beach (no-self)

Sister Khema, Meditating on No-Self: Dhamma Talk (Edited for Bodhi Leaves) edited by Amber Larson and Dhr. Seven for Wisdom Quarterly

This is me, myself, and I...and my dog.

In Buddhism we use the words "self" and "no-self," so it is important to understand just what this "no-self" (anatta) is all about even if it is first just an idea.

This is because the essence of the Buddha's teaching hinges on this realization. This teaching is unique to Buddhism. No other spiritual teachers in history, other than buddhas, which are fully enlightened teachers establishing the Dharma in the world, ever come to realize and teach no-self. No philosophers, no thinkers, no debaters, no sages or seers. It may be the only teaching that has no parallel in other philosophies, religions, or doctrines.

Because of the way it was formulated by the Buddha, there exists the possibility of speaking about it. Otherwise, it would not even occur to one that it is true. Much has been written about no-self, but in order to know it, one must experience it. And that is what the teaching aims at, the experience (liberating insight) of no-self, egolessness, impersonality, suchness (utterly altruistic unselfishness).

 

Look at me, look at my body. This is me.

Yet in order to experience no-self, one has first to fully know what "self" is, actually know it. For unless we do know what this "self" we are slaves to is, the self called "me," "myself" and that grasps at things as "mine," it is impossible to know what is meant by the preposterous/perplexing claim, "There [ultimately speaking] is no self there." In order to give something away, to let it go, to abandon it, we first have to have it in hand. We have to know why we would want to do that.

 

We are constantly trying to reaffirm self. This already shows that this "self" is a very fragile and wispy thing. If it weren't why would we constantly have to reaffirm it? Why are we constantly afraid of the "self" being threatened, being insecure, worrying that i may not get what it needs for survival? If it were such a solid entity as we believe it to be, as we take for granted that it is, we would not so often feel threatened.

 

Southern California coast where the salt hits he sand, Point Dune, Malibu (wiki)

.

I bought all these clothes; they're totally me!

We affirm "self" again and again through identification. We identify with a certain name, an appearance, a memory, a story, an age, a gender, a habit, an ability, an occupation. "I am a lawyer, I am a doctor, I am an accountant, I am a student." And we identify with the people we are attached to. "I am a husband, I am a wife, I am a mother, I am a daughter, I am a son."

Now, in the manner of conventional speech, we have to use the word/concept "self" in that way -- but it isn't only in speech. We really think that that "self" we refer to is real, is enduring, is who we are. We really believe it.

There is no doubt in our mind that that "self" is who we are. When any one of these factors is threatened, if being a wife is threatened, if being a mother is threatened, if being a lawyer is threatened, if being a teacher is threatened -- or if we lose the people who enable us to retain that "self" -- what a tragedy!

 

The self-identification becomes insecure, and "me" finds it hard to say "look at me," "this is me." Praise and blame are included. Praise reaffirms "me." Blame threatens [but subtly reinforces the sense of] "me." So we like the praise and we dislike the blame. The ego is threatened. Fame and infamy -- same thing. Loss and gain. If we gain, the ego gets bigger; if we lose, it gets a bit smaller.

So we are constantly in a quandary and in constant fear. The ego might lose a little bit of its grandeur. It might be made a bit smaller by someone. And it happens to all of us. Somebody is undoubtedly going to blame us for something eventually. Even the Buddha was blamed.

 

But the blame that is levied at us is not the problem. The problem is our reaction. The problem is that we feel smaller. The ego has a hard time reasserting itself. So what we usually do is we blame back, making the other's ego a bit smaller too.

 

Money, sex, food...am "I" enlightened yet?

Identification with whatever it is that we do and whatever it is that we have, be it possessions or people, is -- so we believe -- needed for our survival, "self" survival. If we don't identify with this or that, we feel as if we were in limbo. This is the reason why it is difficult to stop thinking in meditation. Without thinking there would be no identification. If I don't think, what do I identify with?

It is difficult to come to a stage in meditation in which there is actually nothing to identify with anymore.

 

Happiness, too, may be an identification. "I am happy." "I am unhappy." Because we are so keen on survival, we have got to keep on identifying... More

• Rebirth takes place according to perception even though there is no self to be reborn -- because this empty process (dependent on impersonal factors) rolls on (and is kept rolling by ignorance, craving, aversion)
  

Clingy clinging, why do we cling? (video)

Ven. Nyanatiloka (Buddhist Dictionary); Crystal Quintero, Dhr. Seven (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

I ran into your ex...with my car! (tumblr)

Upādāna or "clinging," according to the Path of Purification (Vis.M. XVII), is an intensified form of craving. There are four kinds:

1. sensual clinging (kāma-upādāna)
2. clinging to views (ditthi-upādāna)
3. clinging to mere rules and rituals (sīlabbata-upādāna)
4. clinging to personality-belief (atta-vāda-upādāna).

The curse of the clingy... (Feminista Jones)

(1) "What is sensual clinging? With regard to sensual objects whatever there remains of lust, attachment, desire, passion, deludedness, fetters (bonds), this is called sensual clinging.

 

(2) ''What is clinging to views? 'Giving alms and other offerings is useless; there is no fruit or result of good and ill deeds,' all such wrong views and misconceptions are called clinging to views.

 

(3) "What is clinging to mere rules and rituals? Holding firmly to the view that merely by adhering to rules and rituals one can reach enlightenment, this is called clinging to mere rules and rituals.

 

(4) "What is clinging to personality-belief? The 20 kinds of ego-views with regard to the Five Aggregates of Clinging or "Groups of Existence" (see sakkāya-ditthi), these are called clinging to personality-belief" (Dhs.1214-17).

 

Five Ways to Stop Being a Clingy G/F

This traditional fourfold division is not quite satisfactory.In addition to sensual clinging, one would expect the great commentator Buddhaghosa (the Path of Purification's author) to add either clinging to form (rūpa-upādāna) and clinging to formlessness (arūpa-upādāna) or simply clinging to becoming (or being, bhava-upādāna). 

 

Although the non-returner (any noble person who has reached the third stage of enlightenment), the anāgāmī, is entirely free from the traditional four kinds of clinging, that person is not yet free of rebirth like the fully enlightened person (arhat).

My Clingy Girlfriend (Banerjee)

Why? It is because, as a nonreturner, one is still clinging to becoming.

The Commentary to Vis.M. XVII, in trying to get out of this dilemma, explains that clinging to sensuality includes here all of the remaining kinds of clinging.

 

"Clinging" is the common translation of upādāna; however, "grasping" might come closer to the meaning of it, which is literally "uptake."

• See Three Cardinal Discourses (Wheel 17, Buddhist Publication Society), p.19.

(Laina) Overly Attached Girlfriend finally lets go externally...but then ends up in therapy because of intense regret due to clinging internally.

The essence of "right view" (sutra)

Maurice O'Connell Walshe (trans.) from Samyutta Nikaya: An Anthology (Wheel 318-321), Kaccayanagotto Sutra (SN 12.15) edited by Dhr. Seven and Crystal Quintero, Wisdom Quarterly

Lay meditator and monastic under the bodhi tree, India (Ghosh/Tapasphotography/flickr).

.

[SAVATTHI, ancient India - Ven. Kaccayana asked the Buddha:] "'Right view,* right view,' it is said, venerable sir. In what way is there right view?'

• [*Right view,  the first step of the Noble Eightfold Path, literally means "right seeing." "Right understanding" is misleading because the connotations are too intellectual rendering it "right views" (plural) is misleading because this is not a matter of holding "views" (opinions) at all but rather of "seeing things as they really are."]

"Kaccayana, the world in general inclines toward two views, existence or non-existence. 

Bhikkhu Bodhi (bps.lk)

• [Existence: being (atthita, lit. "is-ness") is the theory of "Eternalism" (sassatavada). Nonexistence: nonbeing (natthita, "is-not-ness)" is the theory of "Annihilationism" (ucchedavaada), the materialism view. See discussion in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of DN 1, The All-Embracing Net of Views (BPS), pp. 30-33.]

"But for one who, with the highest wisdom, sees the arising/origination of the world as it really is [yathabhutam], 'non-existence of the world' does not apply. And for one who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.

 

"Kaccayana, the world in general grasps after systems and is imprisoned by dogmas ["ideologies" or "isms"].
 

"But one [who sees with the highest wisdom] does not go along with that system-grasping, that mental obstinacy, and dogmatic bias, does not grasp at it, does not affirm: 'This is my self.' 

• [This is my self: Atta me ti:] Cf. SN 3.8, n. 1. Feer's edition of SN reads here atta na me ti "this is not myself," which would also make sense but is contradicted, not only in SA (Commentary), but also when the story is repeated at SN 22.90.]

Fully-ordained Buddhist nun on meditation rock in California forest (bhikkhuni.net)

.

"One knows without any doubt or hesitation that whatever arises/originates is merely dukkha [inherent unsatisfactoriness of personality-phenomena and general insecurity of all conditioned existence] that what passes away is merely dukkha, and such knowledge is one's own, not depending on anyone else. This, Kaccayana, is what constitutes right view.

• [Compare this to the point of the Heart Sutra, which states that the "perfection" of wisdom is comprehending the Five Aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) as empty, i.e., as void of self.]

"'Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view].

• [Everything exists (sabbam atthi) -- from the Sanskrit form, sarvam asti (used in a slightly different sense) -- is where the defunct Sarvastivada school got its name. They held that dharmas exist  in "three times" (past, present, future). It was mainly to this early school that the label "Hinayana" ("Lesser Career or Vehicle") was applied and later misapplied to today's Theravada school (see SN 12.22, n. 1).]

"'Nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathagata teaches a doctrine of the middle:

• [Tathagata is the Buddha's usual way of referring to himself: literally "Thus Come" tatha-agata or "Thus Gone (beyond)" (tatha-gata). For other meanings, see Bhikkhu Bodhi, The All-Embracing Net of Views (BPS), pp. 50-53, 331-344.10.]

The Buddha remembered in gold (smep-muc).

"Conditioned by ignorance are the formations... [as at SN 12.10, which explains the dependent origin of the 12 factors involved in the conditional arising of all suffering]... So there comes about the arising of this entire mass of suffering.

"But as a result of the complete fading away and cessation of ignorance there comes the cessation of the formations; as a result of the cessation of the formations comes the cessation of consciousness [the same for all 12 links of Dependent Origination]...

"So there comes about the complete cessation of this entire mass of suffering." [The cessation of all suffering = nirvana.]

To Be An Island Unto Yourself (sutra)

Maurice O'Connell Walshe (trans.), Amber Larson, Dhr. Seven (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly, Attadipa Sutra, "An Island to Oneself" from the Pali Text Society's Feer edition (SN 22.43)

"Meditators, be islands unto yourselves (1); be your own guide (refuge), having no other.

• 1. Atta-dipa: dipa means both "island" and "lamp" (Sanskrit dvipa and dipa). The meaning "island" is well-established here. "Self" refers to the pronoun "oneself" (cf. SN 3.8, n. 1).

"Let the Dharma be an island and a guide to you, having no other.

"Those who are islands unto themselves...should investigate to the very heart of things (2):

• 2. It is necessary to withdraw, to be "an island to unto oneself," at least for a time (as any meditator knows), not because it is "selfish" but precisely to make a profound introspective investigation. Buddhists in another sense would, of course, agree with John Donne that "No man is an island."

"'What is the source of disappointment, lamenting (crying), pain, grief, and despair (hopelessness)? How do they arise?' [That is to say, What is their origin?]

 

"Here, meditators, the ordinary uninstructed worldling [continued as in SN 22.7].

"Change occurs in this person's body (form), and it becomes different. On account of this change and difference, disappointment, crying, pain, grief, and despair arise.

[The same is then said with regard to "feelings" (sensations), "perceptions," "mental formations," and "consciousness," which are the other Groups of Clinging].

 

"But seeing (3) the body's impermanence, its changeability, its waning (4), its ceasing, one says, 'Formerly, as now, all bodies were impermanent and unsatisfactory and subject to change.'

• 3. Woodward remarks (in the Book of the Kindred Sayings, the PTS translation of SN, Vol. III, 1924) that one would expect to find here the words he inserts in the text: "The well-taught [noble] disciple," as in many passages. For if one in fact directly sees these things and reflects on them as stated in the text, one will cease to be an ordinary uninstructed "worldling" and become a noble (enlightened) disciple.
• 4. Viraga, "dispassion" (SN 12.16, n. 2), is waning.

California's remote San Nicolas Island

"Thus, seeing this as it really is, with full insight, one abandons all disappointment, lamenting, pain, grief, and despair. 

"One is not worried at their abandonment, but unworried lives at ease, and thus living at ease one is said to be 'assuredly delivered'" (5). [The same is said with regard to "feelings," "perceptions," "mental formations," and "consciousness"].

• 5. Tadanganibbuto means rather more than Woodward's "one who is rid of all that."

You're too "clingy" (cartoon)

Dhr. Seven, Crystal Quintero, Amber Larson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly; Ven. Nyanatiloka

I don't know what I'm doing wrong in relationship after relationship, searching for...

(Family Guy/Hulu) As clingy as a baby at the bosom is Stewie as Brian tries to cling to Drew

Starts off fun, gets to be too much.

Crystal, is clinging a problem in life? It is in Ashley's life; she has been known to get quite clingy. Ask her. But you? Not me so much, but guys I've dated. What do they do? You know how Brian once went on that reality dating show as a contestant then became infatuated with the bachelorette? Yes, exactly, I get it. He would leave all these phone messages and not get the hint to naff off. 

Brian the clingy bachelor (Family Guy)

"Clinging" (upādāna), according to the Path of Purification (Vis.M. XVII), is a pathetic and intensified degree of craving. The opposite is the "extinction of craving," which is identical with the "extinction of defilements" (āsavakkhaya), which is the attainment of full enlightenment or arhatship. (See noble persons).

There are four kinds of clinging that prevent enlightenment:

1. sensual clinging (kāma-upādāna),
2. clinging to views (ditthi-upādāna),
3. clinging to mere rules and rituals (sīlabbata-upādāna),
4. clinging to personality-belief (atta-vāda-upādāna).

(1) "What now is sensual clinging? Whatever with regard to sense objects there exists of sensual lust, sensual craving, sensual attachment, sensual passion, sensual delusion, sensual fetters (bonds of desire): this is called 'sensual clinging.'

Owner of a lonely heart? Try clinging to sensuality. It will disappoint, but what else are you going to do to overcome the empty feeling in your core and the body's cravings? Invest?

 
(2) ''What is the clinging to views? 'Alms and offerings are useless; there is no fruit or result for good and bad deeds: all such views and wrong opinions are called the clinging to views.

(3) "What is the clinging to mere rules and rituals? The holding firmly to the view that through mere rules (vows, precepts, discipline) and rituals (observances) one may reach enlightenment: this is called the clinging to mere rules and rituals.

• [NOTE: the way to enlightenment and nirvana is liberating-insight, made possible by the Noble Eightfold Path, not mere observance of ceremonies, celebrations, superstitions, magic, abstinences, or austerities, which may aid one along the way but cannot possibly in and of themselves bring about enlightenment.]

(4) "What is the clinging to personality-belief? The 20 kinds of ego-views with regard to the aggregates of existence (see sakkāya-ditthi): these are called the clinging to personality-belief" (Dhs.1214-17).

Not going to get all clingy, are you? - I'm not even going to call you tomorrow. - Good.

.

Heart Sutra: immaculate heart free of clinging

This traditional fourfold division of clinging is unsatisfactory. Besides sensual (kama) clinging we would expect either clinging to form or materiality (rūpa) and clinging to formlessness or immateriality (arūpa), or simply clinging to continued existence (continued becoming, bhava-upādāna).

Although the non-returner, the third of the four stages of enlightenment, is entirely free from the traditional four kinds of clinging, that person is not yet free of rebirth, as one still possesses clinging to continued becoming, the deep desire for rebirth on other planes even though one grasps that they are illusory, marked by Three Characteristics of Existence, namely, that they are impersonal, impermanent, and never able to satisfy one's desires.

The Commentary to the Path of Purification (Vis.M. XVII), in trying to get out of this dilemma, explains "sense clinging" as including here all of the remaining kinds of clinging.

"Clinging" is the common rendering for the Pali/Sanskrit term upādāna, but "grasping" would come closer to the literal meaning of it, which is "uptake" after craving it. See the Three Cardinal Discourses (Wheel No. 17), p.19.

"Family Guy" the Very First Episode

(Workard) Life in modern suburban USA as brought to us by Seth Macfarlane and the many writers of and contributors to "Family Guy." This is the pilot or unofficial first episode, the prequel. The "official" first episode was a remake of it.