Two kinds of thought (https://suttacentral.net/mn19/en/sujato)

middle discourses 19

Two Kinds of Thought

so i have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. There the Buddha addressed the mendicants: “Mendicants!” “Venerable sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:

“Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I thought: ‘Why don’t I meditate by continually dividing my thoughts into two classes?’ So I assigned sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts to one class. And I assigned thoughts of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness to the second class.

Then, as I meditated—diligent, keen, and resolute—a sensual thought arose. I understood: ‘This sensual thought has arisen in me. It leads to hurting myself, hurting others, and hurting both. It blocks wisdom, it’s on the side of anguish, and it doesn’t lead to extinguishment.’ When I reflected that it leads to hurting myself, it went away. When I reflected that it leads to hurting others, it went away. When I reflected that it leads to hurting both, it went away. When I reflected that it blocks wisdom, it’s on the side of anguish, and it doesn’t lead to extinguishment, it went away. So I gave up, got rid of, and eliminated any sensual thoughts that arose.

Then, as I meditated—diligent, keen, and resolute—a malicious thought arose … a cruel thought arose. I understood: ‘This cruel thought has arisen in me. It leads to hurting myself, hurting others, and hurting both. It blocks wisdom, it’s on the side of anguish, and it doesn’t lead to extinguishment.’ When I reflected that it leads to hurting myself … hurting others … hurting both, it went away. When I reflected that it blocks wisdom, it’s on the side of anguish, and it doesn’t lead to extinguishment, it went away. So I gave up, got rid of, and eliminated any cruel thoughts that arose.

Whatever a mendicant frequently thinks about and considers becomes their heart’s inclination. If they often think about and consider sensual thoughts, they’ve given up the thought of renunciation to cultivate sensual thought. Their mind inclines to sensual thoughts. If they often think about and consider malicious thoughts … their mind inclines to malicious thoughts. If they often think about and consider cruel thoughts … their mind inclines to cruel thoughts. Suppose it’s the last month of the rainy season, when the crops grow closely together, and a cowherd must take care of the cattle. He’d tap and poke them with his staff on this side and that to keep them in check. Why is that? For he sees that if they wander into the crops he could be executed, imprisoned, fined, or condemned. In the same way, I saw that unskillful qualities have the drawbacks of sordidness and corruption, and that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.

Then, as I meditated—diligent, keen, and resolute—a thought of renunciation arose. I understood: ‘This thought of renunciation has arisen in me. It doesn’t lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It nourishes wisdom, it’s on the side of freedom from anguish, and it leads to extinguishment.’ If I were to keep on thinking and considering this all night … all day … all night and day, I see no danger that would come from that. Still, thinking and considering for too long would tire my body. And when the body is tired, the mind is stressed. And when the mind is stressed, it’s far from immersion. So I stilled, settled, unified, and immersed my mind internally. Why is that? So that my mind would not be stressed.

Then, as I meditated—diligent, keen, and resolute—a thought of good will arose … a thought of harmlessness arose. I understood: ‘This thought of harmlessness has arisen in me. It doesn’t lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It nourishes wisdom, it’s on the side of freedom from anguish, and it leads to extinguishment.’ If I were to keep on thinking and considering this all night … all day … all night and day, I see no danger that would come from that. Still, thinking and considering for too long would tire my body. And when the body is tired, the mind is stressed. And when the mind is stressed, it’s far from immersion. So I stilled, settled, unified, and immersed my mind internally. Why is that? So that my mind would not be stressed.

Whatever a mendicant frequently thinks about and considers becomes their heart’s inclination. If they often think about and consider thoughts of renunciation, they’ve given up sensual thought to cultivate the thought of renunciation. Their mind inclines to thoughts of renunciation. If they often think about and consider thoughts of good will … their mind inclines to thoughts of good will. If they often think about and consider thoughts of harmlessness … their mind inclines to thoughts of harmlessness. Suppose it’s the last month of summer, when all the crops have been gathered into the neighborhood of a village, and a cowherd must take care of the cattle. While at the root of a tree or in the open he need only be mindful that the cattle are there. In the same way I needed only to be mindful that those things were there.

My energy was roused up and unflagging, my mindfulness was established and lucid, my body was tranquil and undisturbed, and my mind was immersed in samādhi. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I entered and remained in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected were stilled, I entered and remained in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and confidence, and unified mind, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. And with the fading away of rapture, I entered and remained in the third absorption, where I meditated with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’ With the giving up of pleasure and pain, and the ending of former happiness and sadness, I entered and remained in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness.

When my mind had immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—I extended it toward recollection of past lives. I recollected many kinds of past lives, with features and details. This was the first knowledge, which I achieved in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed and knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed and light arose, as happens for a meditator who is diligent, keen, and resolute.

When my mind had become immersed in samādhi like this, I extended it toward knowledge of the death and rebirth of sentient beings. With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw sentient beings passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how sentient beings are reborn according to their deeds. This was the second knowledge, which I achieved in the middle watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed and knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed and light arose, as happens for a meditator who is diligent, keen, and resolute.

When my mind had become immersed in samādhi like this, I extended it toward knowledge of the ending of defilements. I truly understood: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.' I truly understood: ‘These are defilements’ … ‘This is the origin of defilements’ … ‘This is the cessation of defilements’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of defilements.' Knowing and seeing like this, my mind was freed from the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. I understood: ‘Rebirth is ended; the spiritual journey has been completed; what had to be done has been done; there is no return to any state of existence.’ This was the third knowledge, which I achieved in the last watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed and knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed and light arose, as happens for a meditator who is diligent, keen, and resolute.

Suppose that in a forested wilderness there was an expanse of low-lying marshes, and a large herd of deer lived nearby. Then along comes a person who wants to harm, injure, and threaten them. They close off the safe, secure path that leads to happiness, and open the wrong path. There they plant domesticated male and female deer as decoys so that, in due course, that herd of deer would fall to ruin and disaster. Then along comes a person who wants to help keep the herd of deer safe. They open up the safe, secure path that leads to happiness, and close off the wrong path. They get rid of the decoys so that, in due course, that herd of deer would grow, increase, and mature.

I’ve made up this simile to make a point. And this is what it means. ‘An expanse of low-lying marshes’ is a term for sensual pleasures. ‘A large herd of deer’ is a term for sentient beings. ‘A person who wants to harm, injure, and threaten them’ is a term for Māra the Wicked. ‘The wrong path’ is a term for the wrong eightfold path, that is, wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, and wrong immersion. ‘A domesticated male deer’ is a term for desire with relishing. ‘A domesticated female deer’ is a term for ignorance. ‘A person who wants to help keep the herd of deer safe’ is a term for the Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. ‘The safe, secure path that leads to happiness’ is a term for the noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.

So, mendicants, I have opened up the safe, secure path to happiness and closed off the wrong path. And I have got rid of the male and female decoys. Out of compassion, I’ve done what a teacher should do who wants what’s best for their disciples. Here are these roots of trees, and here are these empty huts. Practice absorption, mendicants! Don’t be negligent! Don’t regret it later! This is my instruction to you.”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants were happy with what the Buddha said.

The honey-cake, source https://suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato

middle discourses 18

The Honey-Cake

so i have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying in the land of the Sakyans, near Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Tree Monastery. Then the Buddha robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe, entered Kapilavatthu for alms. He wandered for alms in Kapilavatthu. After the meal, on his return from alms-round, he went to the Great Wood, plunged deep into it, and sat at the root of a young wood apple tree for the day’s meditation. Daṇḍapāṇi the Sakyan, while going for a walk, plunged deep into the Great Wood. He approached the Buddha and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he stood to one side leaning on his staff, and said to the Buddha: “What does the ascetic teach? What does he explain?” “Sir, my teaching is such that one does not conflict with anyone in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans. And it is such that perceptions do not underlie the brahmin who lives detached from sensual pleasures, without doubting, stripped of worry, and rid of craving for rebirth in this or that state. That’s what I teach, and that’s what I explain.”

When he had spoken, Daṇḍapāṇi shook his head, waggled his tongue, raised his eyebrows until his brow puckered in three furrows, and he departed leaning on his staff.

Then in the late afternoon, the Buddha came out of retreat and went to the Banyan Tree Monastery, sat down on the seat spread out, and told the mendicants what had happened.

When he had spoken, one of the mendicants said to him: “But sir, what is the teaching such that the Buddha does not conflict with anyone in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans? And how is it that perceptions do not underlie the Buddha, the brahmin who lives detached from sensual pleasures, without indecision, stripped of worry, and rid of craving for rebirth in this or that state?” “Mendicant, a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. If they don’t find anything worth approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which these arise, just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and ignorance. This is the end of taking up the rod and the sword, the end of quarrels, arguments, and fights, of accusations, divisive speech, and lies. This is where these bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over.” That is what the Buddha said. When he had spoken, the Holy One got up from his seat and entered his dwelling.

Soon after the Buddha left, those mendicants considered: “The Buddha gave this brief passage for recitation, then entered his dwelling without explaining the meaning in detail. Who can explain in detail the meaning of this brief passage for recitation given by the Buddha?” Then those mendicants thought: “This Venerable Mahākaccāna is praised by the Buddha and esteemed by his sensible spiritual companions. He is capable of explaining in detail the meaning of this brief passage for recitation given by the Buddha. Let’s go to him, and ask him about this matter.”

Then those mendicants went to Mahākaccāna, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, they sat down to one side. They told him what had happened, and said: “May Venerable Mahākaccāna please explain this.”

“Reverends, suppose there was a person in need of heartwood. And while wandering in search of heartwood he’d come across a large tree standing with heartwood. But he’d pass over the roots and trunk, imagining that the heartwood should be sought in the branches and leaves. Such is the consequence for the venerables. Though you were face to face with the Buddha, you passed him by, imagining that you should ask me about this matter. For he is the Buddha, who knows and sees. He is vision, he is knowledge, he is the truth, he is holiness. He is the teacher, the proclaimer, the elucidator of meaning, the bestower of the deathless, the lord of truth, the Realized One. That was the time to approach the Buddha and ask about this matter. You should have remembered it in line with the Buddha’s answer.” “Certainly he is the Buddha, who knows and sees. He is vision, he is knowledge, he is the truth, he is holiness. He is the teacher, the proclaimer, the elucidator of meaning, the bestower of the deathless, the lord of truth, the Realized One. That was the time to approach the Buddha and ask about this matter. We should have remembered it in line with the Buddha’s answer. Still, Mahākaccāna is praised by the Buddha and esteemed by his sensible spiritual companions. You are capable of explaining in detail the meaning of this brief passage for recitation given by the Buddha. Please explain this, if it’s no trouble.” “Well then, reverends, listen and pay close attention, I will speak.” “Yes, reverend,” they replied. Venerable Mahākaccāna said this:

“Reverends, the Buddha gave this brief passage for recitation, then entered his dwelling without explaining the meaning in detail: ‘A person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. If they don’t find anything worth approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which these arise … This is where these bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over.’ This is how I understand the detailed meaning of this passage for recitation.

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to sights known by the eye in the past, future, and present. Ear consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds. … Nose consciousness arises dependent on the nose and smells. … Tongue consciousness arises dependent on the tongue and tastes. … Body consciousness arises dependent on the body and touches. … Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and thoughts. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to thoughts known by the mind in the past, future, and present.

When there is the eye, sights, and eye consciousness, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘contact’. When there is what’s known as contact, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘feeling’. When there is what’s known as feeling, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘perception’. When there is what’s known as perception, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘thought’. When there is what’s known as thought, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘being beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions’. When there is the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind, thoughts, and mind consciousness, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘contact’. … When there is what’s known as thought, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘being beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions’.

When there is no eye, no sights, and no eye consciousness, it’s not possible to point out what’s known as ‘contact’. When there isn’t what’s known as contact, it’s not possible to point out what’s known as ‘feeling’. When there isn’t what’s known as feeling, it’s not possible to point out what’s known as ‘perception’. When there isn’t what’s known as perception, it’s not possible to point out what’s known as ‘thought’. When there isn’t what’s known as thought, it’s not possible to point out what’s known as ‘being beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions’. When there is no ear … nose … tongue … body … mind, no thoughts, and no mind consciousness, it’s not possible to point out what’s known as ‘contact’. … When there isn’t what’s known as thought, it’s not possible to point out what’s known as ‘being beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions’.

This is how I understand the detailed meaning of that brief passage for recitation given by the Buddha. If you wish, you may go to the Buddha and ask him about this. You should remember it in line with the Buddha’s answer.”

“Yes, reverend,” said those mendicants, approving and agreeing with what Mahākaccāna said. Then they rose from their seats and went to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and told him what had happened. Then they said: “Mahākaccāna clearly explained the meaning to us in this manner, with these words and phrases.” “Mahākaccāna is astute, mendicants, he has great wisdom. If you came to me and asked this question, I would answer it in exactly the same way as Mahākaccāna. That is what it means, and that’s how you should remember it.”

When he said this, Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha: “Sir, suppose a person who was weak with hunger was to obtain a honey-cake. Wherever they taste it, they would enjoy a sweet, delicious flavor. In the same way, wherever a sincere, capable mendicant might examine with wisdom the meaning of this exposition of the teaching they would only gain joy and clarity. Sir, what is the name of this exposition of the teaching?” “Well, Ānanda, you may remember this exposition of the teaching as ‘The Honey-Cake Discourse’.”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, Venerable Ānanda was happy with what the Buddha said.

How to stop thinking, source https://suttacentral.net/mn20/en/sujato

middle discourses 20

How to Stop Thinking

so i have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. There the Buddha addressed the mendicants: “Mendicants!” “Venerable sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:

“Mendicants, a mendicant committed to the higher mind should focus on five foundations of meditation from time to time. What five? Take a mendicant who is focusing on some foundation of meditation that gives rise to bad, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion. That mendicant should focus on some other foundation of meditation connected with the skillful. As they do so, those bad thoughts are given up and come to an end. Their mind becomes stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi. It’s like a deft carpenter or their apprentice who’d knock out or extract a large peg with a finer peg. In the same way, a mendicant … should focus on some other foundation of meditation connected with the skillful …

Now, suppose that mendicant is focusing on some other foundation of meditation connected with the skillful, but bad, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion keep coming up. They should examine the drawbacks of those thoughts: ‘So these thoughts are unskillful, they’re blameworthy, and they result in suffering.’ As they do so, those bad thoughts are given up and come to an end. Their mind becomes stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi. Suppose there was a woman or man who was young, youthful, and fond of adornments. If the corpse of a snake or a dog or a human was hung around their neck, they’d be horrified, repelled, and disgusted. In the same way, a mendicant … should examine the drawbacks of those thoughts …

Now, suppose that mendicant is examining the drawbacks of those thoughts, but bad, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion keep coming up. They should try to ignore and forget about them. As they do so, those bad thoughts are given up and come to an end. Their mind becomes stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi. Suppose there was a person with good eyesight, and some undesirable sights came into their range of vision. They’d just close their eyes or look away. In the same way, a mendicant … those bad thoughts are given up and come to an end …

Now, suppose that mendicant is ignoring and forgetting about those thoughts, but bad, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion keep coming up. They should focus on stopping the formation of thoughts. As they do so, those bad thoughts are given up and come to an end. Their mind becomes stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi. Suppose there was a person walking quickly. They’d think: ‘Why am I walking so quickly? Why don’t I slow down?’ So they’d slow down. They’d think: ‘Why am I walking slowly? Why don’t I stand still?’ So they’d stand still. They’d think: ‘Why am I standing still? Why don’t I sit down?’ So they’d sit down. They’d think: ‘Why am I sitting? Why don’t I lie down?’ So they’d lie down. And so that person would reject successively coarser postures and adopt more subtle ones. In the same way, a mendicant … those thoughts are given up and come to an end …

Now, suppose that mendicant is focusing on stopping the formation of thoughts, but bad, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion keep coming up. With teeth clenched and tongue pressed against the roof of the mouth, they should squeeze, squash, and torture mind with mind. As they do so, those bad thoughts are given up and come to an end. Their mind becomes stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi. It’s like a strong man who grabs a weaker man by the head or throat or shoulder and squeezes, squashes, and tortures them. In the same way, a mendicant … with teeth clenched and tongue pressed against the roof of the mouth, should squeeze, squash, and torture mind with mind. As they do so, those bad thoughts are given up and come to an end. Their mind becomes stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi.

Now, take the mendicant who is focusing on some foundation of meditation that gives rise to bad, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion. They focus on some other foundation of meditation connected with the skillful … They examine the drawbacks of those thoughts … They try to ignore and forget about those thoughts … They focus on stopping the formation of thoughts … With teeth clenched and tongue pressed against the roof of the mouth, they squeeze, squash, and torture mind with mind. When they succeed in each of these things, those bad thoughts are given up and come to an end. Their mind becomes stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi. This is called a mendicant who is a master of the ways of thought. They’ll think what they want to think, and they won’t think what they don’t want to think. They’ve cut off craving, untied the fetters, and by rightly comprehending conceit have made an end of suffering.”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants were happy with what the Buddha said.

All the defilements, (www.suttacentral.net/mn2/en/sujato)

All the Defilements

so i have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. There the Buddha addressed the mendicants: “Mendicants!” “Venerable sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this: “Mendicants, I will teach you the explanation of the restraint of all defilements. Listen and pay close attention, I will speak.” “Yes, sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:

“Mendicants, I say that the ending of defilements is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know or see. For one who knows and sees what? Proper attention and improper attention. When you pay improper attention, defilements arise, and once arisen they grow. When you pay proper attention, defilements don’t arise, and those that have already arisen are given up.

Some defilements should be given up by seeing, some by restraint, some by using, some by enduring, some by avoiding, some by dispelling, and some by developing.

1. Defilements Given Up by Seeing

And what are the defilements that should be given up by seeing? Take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons. They don’t understand what things they should focus on and what things they shouldn’t focus on. So they focus on things they shouldn’t focus on and don’t focus on things they should focus on.

And what are the things they shouldn’t focus on but they do? They are the things that, when focused on, give rise to unarisen defilements of sensual desire, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. And when such defilements have arisen, they make them grow. These are the things they shouldn’t focus on but they do.

And what are the things they should focus on but they don’t? They are the things that, when focused on, don’t give rise to unarisen defilements of sensual desire, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. And when such defilements have arisen, they’re given up. These are the things they should focus on but they don’t.

Because of focusing on what they shouldn’t and not focusing on what they should, unarisen defilements arise and arisen defilements grow.

This is how they attend improperly: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? After being what, what did I become in the past? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? After being what, what will I become in the future?’ Or they are undecided about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it come from? And where will it go?’

When they attend improperly in this way, one of six views arises in them. The view ‘my self exists absolutely’ arises and is taken as a genuine fact. The view ‘my self doesn’t exist absolutely’ arises and is taken as a genuine fact. The view ‘I perceive the self with the self’ arises and is taken as a genuine fact. The view ‘I perceive what is not-self with the self’ arises and is taken as a genuine fact. The view ‘I perceive the self with what is not-self’ arises and is taken as a genuine fact. Or they have such a view: ‘This self of mine is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms. This self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’ This is called a misconception, the thicket of views, the desert of views, the trick of views, the evasiveness of views, the fetter of views. An uneducated ordinary person who is fettered by views is not freed from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. They’re not freed from suffering, I say.

But take an educated noble disciple who has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen good persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the good persons. They understand what things they should focus on and what things they shouldn’t focus on. So they don’t focus on things they shouldn’t focus on and focus on things they should focus on.

And what are the things they shouldn’t focus on and they don’t? They are the things that, when focused on, give rise to unarisen defilements of sensual desire, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. And when such defilements have arisen, they make them grow. These are the things they shouldn’t focus on and they don’t.

And what are the things they should focus on and they do? They are the things that, when focused on, don’t give rise to unarisen defilements of sensual desire, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. And when such defilements have arisen, they’re given up. These are the things they should focus on and they do.

Because of not focusing on what they shouldn’t and focusing on what they should, unarisen defilements don’t arise and arisen defilements are given up.

They properly attend: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’. And as they do so, they give up three fetters: identity view, doubt, and misapprehension of precepts and observances. These are called the defilements that should be given up by seeing.

2. Defilements Given Up by Restraint

And what are the defilements that should be given up by restraint? Take a mendicant who, reflecting properly, lives restraining the faculty of the eye. For the distressing and feverish defilements that might arise in someone who lives without restraint of the eye faculty do not arise when there is such restraint. Reflecting properly, they live restraining the faculty of the ear … the nose … the tongue … the body … the mind. For the distressing and feverish defilements that might arise in someone who lives without restraint of the mind faculty do not arise when there is such restraint.

For the distressing and feverish defilements that might arise in someone who lives without restraint do not arise when there is such restraint. These are called the defilements that should be given up by restraint.

3. Defilements Given Up by Using

And what are the defilements that should be given up by using? Take a mendicant who, reflecting properly, makes use of robes: ‘Only for the sake of warding off cold and heat; for warding off the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles; and for covering the private parts.’

Reflecting properly, they make use of almsfood: ‘Not for fun, indulgence, adornment, or decoration, but only to continue and sustain this body, avoid harm, and support spiritual practice. So that I will put an end to old discomfort and not give rise to new discomfort, and so that I will keep on living blamelessly and at ease.’

Reflecting properly, they make use of lodgings: ‘Only for the sake of warding off cold and heat; for warding off the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles; and to shelter from harsh weather and enjoy retreat.’

Reflecting properly, they make use of medicines and supplies for the sick: ‘Only for the sake of warding off the pains of illness and to promote good health.’

For the distressing and feverish defilements that might arise in someone who lives without using these things do not arise when they are used. These are called the defilements that should be given up by using.

4. Defilements Given Up by Enduring

And what are the defilements that should be given up by enduring? Take a mendicant who, reflecting properly, endures cold, heat, hunger, and thirst. They endure the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles. They endure rude and unwelcome criticism. And they put up with physical pain—sharp, severe, acute, unpleasant, disagreeable, and life-threatening.

For the distressing and feverish defilements that might arise in someone who lives without enduring these things do not arise when they are endured. These are called the defilements that should be given up by enduring.

5. Defilements Given Up by Avoiding

And what are the defilements that should be given up by avoiding? Take a mendicant who, reflecting properly, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild ox, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, thorny ground, a pit, a cliff, a swamp, and a sewer. Reflecting properly, they avoid sitting on inappropriate seats, walking in inappropriate neighborhoods, and mixing with bad friends—whatever sensible spiritual companions would believe to be a bad setting.

For the distressing and feverish defilements that might arise in someone who lives without avoiding these things do not arise when they are avoided. These are called the defilements that should be given up by avoiding.

6. Defilements Given Up by Dispelling

And what are the defilements that should be given up by dispelling? Take a mendicant who, reflecting properly, doesn’t tolerate a sensual, malicious, or cruel thought that has arisen, but gives it up, gets rid of it, eliminates it, and obliterates it. They don’t tolerate any bad, unskillful qualities that have arisen, but give them up, get rid of them, eliminate them, and obliterate them.

For the distressing and feverish defilements that might arise in someone who lives without dispelling these things do not arise when they are dispelled. These are called the defilements that should be given up by dispelling.

7. Defilements Given Up by Developing

And what are the defilements that should be given up by developing? It’s when a mendicant, reflecting properly, develops the awakening factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles, energy, rapture, tranquility, immersion, and equanimity, which rely on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripen as letting go.

For the distressing and feverish defilements that might arise in someone who lives without developing these things do not arise when they are developed. These are called the defilements that should be given up by developing.

Now, take a mendicant who, by seeing, has given up the defilements that should be given up by seeing. By restraint, they’ve given up the defilements that should be given up by restraint. By using, they’ve given up the defilements that should be given up by using. By enduring, they’ve given up the defilements that should be given up by enduring. By avoiding, they’ve given up the defilements that should be given up by avoiding. By dispelling, they’ve given up the defilements that should be given up by dispelling. By developing, they’ve given up the defilements that should be given up by developing. They’re called a mendicant who lives having restrained all defilements, who has cut off craving, untied the fetters, and by rightly comprehending conceit has made an end of suffering.”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants were happy with what the Buddha said.

Sakka's questions various sources

Ask me your question, Vāsava, 
whatever you want. 
I’ll solve each and every 
problem you have.”

1. Received into audience, Sakka, the king of gods, put the first question to the Bhagavā: “What

bond, O Lord, holds gods and men, Asuras, Nāgas, Gandhabbas and other common folks who

aspire for living in amity, in harmlessness, in clemency, in benevolence, without hostility, but yet

who live in hostility, in violence, in cruelty, in malevolence, not in friendliness?” This was the

question Sakka, the king of gods, put to the Bhagavā. The Bhagavā made answer:

“The bond, O king of gods, is envy and selfishness; bound by the bond of envy and selfishness,

gods and men, Asuras, Nāgas, Gandhabbas and other common folks live in hostility, in violence, in

cruelty, in malevolence; not in friendliness—even though they aspire for living in amity, in

harmlessness, in benevolence, without hostility.” In this manner the Bhagavā answered the

question put by Sakka, the king of gods. Edified, Sakka, the king of gods, approved of the

Bhagavā’s saying and took delight in it, “Thus it is, O Blessed One. Conquered are my doubts, gone

my uncertainty, having heard the Bhagavā’s answer to this question.”

Comment. 

Sakka obviously is concerned about the hostility as it exists between a great many

beings of the sensual sphere (kāma-loka); between gods, men, Asuras, Nāgas, Gandhabbas and

other common folk. But also something else did he observe. Animosity of any kind, be it open

warfare or a single malicious thought, is unpleasant to anyone afflicted with it, and so beings

resolve not to surrender to it; but for the most part they fail utterly even as a habitual drunkard

cannot by a mere resolution possibly abstain from intoxicants. And here, in the disparity

between a mental resolution and the inability to follow it up, Sakka saw the problem; and the

Buddha reveals to him that this is due not to something outward, but to conditions inherent in

beings themselves—to envy and selfishness.

 Of mental defilements, envy and selfishness (issā-macchariya) are the most vital, existing in

almost all beings of the sensual sphere in some degree or other. These defilements, however

hidden they may be, by their very nature trespass on the domain of others, and so introduce

ill-feeling which, at any occasion, may result in open hostility.

Sakka at once comprehends the importance of the Bhagavā’s answer. He is jubilant to find

the remedy to what so sorely aggrieved him, namely, to purify one’s mind from envy and

selfishness. Hero too his lofty spirit is revealed. It must be remembered that Sakka, as a deity,

extremely seldom, perhaps once in millions of years, personally experiences the harmful result

of envy and selfishness, namely animosity. His life for the most part is full of harmony because

of the comparative weakness of these defilements within him. But Sakka, having once fully 

understood that envy and selfishness are evil, is no longer interested in more or less of them;

he wants to see nothing but the final destruction of envy and selfishness. 

So deeply concerned is he with the matter that he now begins a radical inquiry into the

conditions which bring on envy and selfishness and the conditions necessary for the

eradication of these defilements. He does this with the admirable skill that was already evident

from his first question. 

2. And Sakka, the king of gods, approving of the Bhagavā’s saying and delighting in it, put a

further question: “But what, O Lord, brings on envy and selfishness? What is their origin? From

what do they spring? What gives rise to them? What being present, envy and selfishness appear?

What not being present, envy and selfishness do not appear?”

“What brings on envy and selfishness, O king of gods, are likes and dislikes. Likes and dislikes

are their origin. From likes and dislikes do they spring. Likes and dislikes give rise to them. Likes

and dislikes being present, envy and selfishness appear. Likes and dislikes not being present, envy

and selfishness do not appear.”

“But what, O Lord, brings on likes and dislikes? What is their origin? From what do they spring?

What gives rise to them? What being present, likes and dislikes appear? What not being present,

likes and dislikes do not appear?”

“What brings on likes and dislikes, O king of gods, is desire. Desire is their origin. From desire

do they spring. Desire gives rise to them. Desire being present, likes and dislikes appear. Desire not

being present, likes and dislikes do not appear.”

“But what, O Lord, brings on desire? What is its origin? From what does it spring? What gives

rise to it? What being present, desire appears? What not being present, desire does not appear?” 

“What brings on desire, O king of gods, is (wrong) reflection.4

 Reflection is its origin. From

reflection does it spring. Reflection gives rise to it. Reflection being present, desire appears.

Reflection not being present, desire does not appear.”

“But what, O Lord, makes for (wrong) reflection? What is its origin? From what does it spring?

What gives rise to it? What being present, reflection appears? What not being present, reflection

does not appear?” 

“What makes for (wrong) reflection, O king of gods, is multiplicity of perception. Multiplicity of

perception is its origin. From multiplicity of perception does it spring. Multiplicity of perception

gives rise to it. Multiplicity of perception being present, reflection appears. Multiplicity of

perception not being present, reflection does not appear.”

Comment. In this set of questions and answers the core of the Buddha’s teaching is

represented, the idea of conditionality (paṭicca-samuppāda), in a new formula. The condition of

envy and selfishness (issā-macchariya), likes and dislikes (piyappiyā), the condition of likes and

dislikes is desire (chanda); the condition of desire is (wrong) reflection (vitakka); and the

condition of reflection is multiplicity of perception (papañca-saññā-saṅkha). By the cessation of

multifarious perception reflection ceases; by the cessation of reflection desire ceases; by the

cessation of desire likes and dislikes cease, and by the cessation of likes and dislikes envy and

selfishness are uprooted, and so all animosity.

The idea of conditionality (paṭicca-samuppāda) is known to Sakka; that is evident from the

way he questions. And it is indeed the profundity of Sakka’s quest that has led to such

philosophical heights. For now it has to be understood that envy and selfishness, and the

hostility they imply, are so deep-rooted that their destruction ultimately becomes possible only

when diversified perception ceases; in other words, envy and selfishness and hostility are

inevitable facts of existence.

Multiplicity of perception is a simplified translation of papañcā-sañña-saṅkhā, a Pali term

difficult to translate. Papañca-saññā-saṅkhā includes any perception that enters individual

experience, anything perceived by mind or sense-faculties. Papañca-saññā-saṅkhā is the

continual influx of multifarious perceptions which is evoked by, or finds response in

craving.5

 It is the inner and outer world of an individual, dependent on former action

(kamma), and the cause of fresh one.

The cessation of diversified perception thus really means the cessation of existence

itself (= cessation of kamma), the ultimate goal, Nibbāna. And this is evident to Sakka at

once. He has found the comprehensive outlook that appeals to him; now he wants to

know how this can be brought about.

3. “And how, O Lord, must a bhikkhu conduct himself to be endowed with the path fit for leading

to the dissolution of the continual influx of multifarious perceptions?”

“Happiness, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be

followed after. Sorrow too, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to

be followed after. And also indifference, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed

after and not to be followed after. 

“Happiness, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be

followed after. And why? If one knows of a happiness: ‘This happiness when followed after by me

makes evil states (akusalā dhammā) grow and good states (kusalā dhammā) vanish,’ then that

happiness, the happiness connected with worldliness, should not be followed after. 6

 And again, if

one knows of a happiness: ‘This happiness when followed after by me makes evil states vanish and

goods states grow,’ then that happiness, [the happiness that arises from truly understanding the

evanescent nature of all phenomena, and the detachment connected with such an understanding], 7

should be followed after. This may be done with reflection and discursive thinking (savitakka-

savicāra)

8

 or without reflection and discursive thinking (avitakka-avicāra). Of the two, that without

reflection and discursive thinking is the better.9

 Happiness, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold

as to be followed after and not to be followed after. If this was said, it was said for that reason. 

“Sorrow too, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be

followed after. And why? If one knows of a sorrow: ‘This sorrow when followed after by me

makes evil states grow and good states vanish,’ then that sorrow [the frustration, sensual 

indulgence inevitably results in] should not be followed after. And again, if one knows of a

sorrow: ‘This sorrow when followed after by me makes evil states vanish and good states

grow,’ then that sorrow [the sorrow of a holy disciple who craves for accomplishment but has

not yet achieved the destruction of the taints (āsavā)] should be followed after. This may be

done with reflection and discursive thinking or without reflection and discursive thinking. Of

the two, that without reflection and discursive thinking is the better. Sorrow too, O king of

gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after. If this was said, it

was said for that reason. 

“And also indifference, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold: as to be followed after and not to

be followed after. And why? If one knows of an indifference: ‘This indifference when followed after

by me makes evil states grow and good states vanish,’ then that indifference (the stupidity and

dullness of an ordinary man who remains indifferent, intoxicated by delusion) should not be

followed after. And again, if one knows of an indifference: ‘This indifference when followed after

by me makes evil states vanish and good states grow,’ then that indifference [the true equanimity of

a holy disciple, arising from insight and detachment] should be followed after. This may be done

with reflection and discursive thinking or without reflection and discursive thinking.10 Of the two,

that without reflection is the better. Indifference too, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be

followed after and not to be followed after. If this was said, it was said for that reason. 

“It is thus, O king of gods, that a bhikkhu must conduct himself to become fit for the path

leading to the dissolution of the continual influx of multifarious perceptions.” 

In this manner it was that Bhagavā answered the question put by Sakka, the king of gods.

Edified, Sakka, the king of gods, approved of the Bhagavā’s saying and took delight in it: “Thus it

is, O Bhagavā! Thus it is, O Sugata! Conquered are my doubts, gone is my uncertainty, having

heard the Bhagava’s answer to this question.” 

Comment. A task such as the dissolution of diversified perception rooted in diversifying of

craving is but one of the many courses of training towards the same ultimate goal of Nibbāna.

It can be attempted only by a bhikkhu. That much is quite clear to Sakka. That is, he does not

hope for its accomplishment in his present life as a deity, but dedicates himself to the life of a

bhikkhu in a birth to come which will be in the human world, as he himself later announces.

It was said earlier that multiplicity of perception (papañca-saññā-saṅkhā) comprises the

whole of possible experience, for every single perception, be it a form, a sound, an odour, a

taste, a touch or an idea, is connected with one of the three feelings, either with happiness

(somanassa), or with sorrow (domanassa), or with indifference (upekhā). An untrained mind does

neither comprehend this fact nor, and still less so, does he attempt to control the immensity of

impressions, but indiscriminately follows after whatever feeling begets. But the Buddha

declares that not any type of happiness, not any type of sorrow and not any type of

indifference should be pursued, whilst, on the other hand, a certain happiness, a certain

unhappiness and a certain indifference should be cultivated, as indicated in the context above.

This is the standard that a trained mind applies to feelings, whether their pursuit is conducive

to Nibbāna or not. 

And so the path which the Buddha shows to Sakka is a radical re-evaluation of all

experience, taking place in a strenuous course of individual application. And this is bhāvanā, a 

‘making become; bringing into being; an actualization of the Dhamma which has to be

pursued until what is now dimly perceived or not at all, becomes a dominant mental force

through which one acts effortlessly, in perfect accordance with reality, freed from taints,

(āsava).

And Sakka has understood this too. There remain to be clarified for him the moral conduct

obligatory on a bhikkhu and the restraint of sense faculties.

4. And Sakka, the king of gods, approving of the Bhagavā’s saying and delighting in it, put a

further question: “And how, O Lord, must a bhikkhu conduct himself to be endowed with the

moral restraint obligatory on him.”11

“Bodily conduct, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be

followed after. Conduct by speech too, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed

after and not to be followed after. And also pursuit (pariyesanā), O king of gods, I declare to be

twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after.

“Bodily conduct, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold as to be followed after and not to be

followed after. And why? If one knows of a bodily conduct: ‘This bodily conduct when followed

after by me makes evil states grow and good states vanish, then that bodily conduct [killing,

stealing and sexual acts] should not be followed after. And again, if one knows of a bodily conduct:

‘This bodily conduct when followed after by me makes evil states vanish and good states grow,’

then that bodily conduct [abstaining from killing, stealing and sexual acts] should be followed

after. Bodily conduct, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be

followed after. If this was said, it was said for that reason.

“Conduct by speech too, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not

to be followed after. And why? If one knows of a conduct by speech: ‘This conduct by speech when

followed after by me makes evil states grow and good states vanish,’ then that conduct by speech

[lying, slander, harsh words and frivolous talk] should not be followed after.And again, if one

knows of a conduct by speech, ‘This conduct by speech when followed after by me makes evil

states vanish and good states grow,’ then that conduct by speech [abstaining from lying, slander,

harsh words and frivolous talk] should be followed after. Conduct by speech too, O king of gods, I

declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after. If this was said, it was

said for that reason.

“And also pursuit, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be

followed after. And why? If one knows of a pursuit: ‘This pursuit when followed after by me makes

evil states grow and good states vanish,’ then that pursuit [worldly pursuit—āmisa pariyesanā]

should not be followed after. And again, if one knows of a pursuit: ‘This pursuit when followed

after by me makes evil states vanish and good states grow,’ then that pursuit [pursuit of the truth;

dhamma pariyesanā] should be followed after. And also pursuit, O king of gods, I declare to be

twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after. If this was said; it was said for that

reason.

“It is thus, O king of gods, that a bhikkhu must conduct himself to be endowed with the moral

restraint obligatory on him.”

In this manner the Bhagavā answered the question put by Sakka, the king of gods. Edified,

Sakka, the king of gods, approved of the Bhagavā’s saying and took delight in it. “Thus it is, O

Bhagavā! Thus it is, O Sugata! Conquered are my doubts, gone is my uncertainty, having heard the

Bhagavā’s answer to this question.”

5. And Sakka, the king of gods, approving of the Bhagavā’s saying and delighted in it, put a

further question: “And how, O Lord, must a bhikkhu conduct himself to be endowed with restraint

of his sense faculties?”

“Form, O king of gods, perceptible by the eye, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and

not to be followed after. Sound, O king of gods, perceptible by the ear, I declare to be twofold, as to

be followed after and not to be followed after. Odour, O king of gods, perceptible by the nose, I

declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after. Taste, O king of gods,

perceptible by the tongue, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed

after. Touch, O king of gods, perceptible by the body, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed

after and not to be followed after. Mind-object, O king of gods, perceptible by the mind, I declare to

be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after.” 

When this was said, Sakka, the king of gods, spoke thus to the Bhagavā: “The meaning of what

was said in brief by the Bhagavā, O Lord, I understand in full thus: A form, O Lord, perceptible by

the eye, which makes evil states grow and good states vanish, should not be followed after; and

again, O Lord, a form, perceptible by the eye; which makes evil states vanish and good states grow,

should be followed after. A sound, O Lord, perceptible by the ear, which makes evil states grow

and good states vanish should not be followed after; and again O Lord, a sound perceptible by the

ear, which makes evil states vanish and good states grow, should be followed after. An odour, O

Lord, perceptible by the nose, which makes evil states grow and good states vanish, should not be

followed after, and again, O Lord, an odour, perceptible by the nose, which makes evil states vanish

and good states grow, should be followed after. A taste, O Lord, perceptible by the tongue, which

makes evil states grow and good states vanish, should not be followed after; and again, O Lord, a

taste, perceptible by the tongue, which makes evil states vanish and good states grow, should be

followed after. A touch, O Lord, perceptible by the body, which makes evil states grow and good

states vanish, should not be followed after; and again, O Lord, a touch, perceptible by the body,

which makes evil states vanish and good states grow, should be followed after. A mind-object, O

Lord, perceptible by the mind, which makes evil states grow and good states vanish, should not be

followed after; and again, O Lord, a mind-object, perceptible by the mind, which makes evil states

vanish and good states grow, should be followed after. 

Thus do I understand the meaning in full, O Lord, of what was said. 

 

Mental proliferation meaning: Probably the first thing you will notice as you meditate is what a busy place the mind is.  Sensations, sounds, images, intentions, urges, emotions, memories, plans, reveries, and judgments, all flit in and out of awareness with surprising speed.  If the mind is observing itself rather than focused on problem solving, it might appear at first that there is no order in the jumble and chaos that presents itself.  The mind may also appear chaotic in that the intention to self-observe does not, in itself, seem very stable. One moment we are observing our minds, and the next moment we are off in a daydream, the intent to observe all but lost.  It can be a bit alarming to see how hard it is to keep the mind on track. Whatever our intentions as observers, the mind seems to have a mind of its own.This is the very first lesson of observation: “we,” the observers, are not in control of our minds: the mind is completely untamed and follows its own rules independent of our wills. What is happening, however, is not really chaotic.  The mind is following rules.  One of those rules is that one event in the mind triggers a variety of associated processes.  Imagine for a moment that we are sitting quietly and notice the sound of bird song.  This event then triggers a variety of contingent processes:

1) Labeling – Categorizing the sound: Is it a robin?  Is it a cardinal?

2) Judgment – Is the sound pleasant or unpleasant?

3) Memory – Remembering facts about birds, images of birds, past memories of having heard birds, etc.

4) Intention – Deciding to look for the bird; Vowing to read up more on birds

The cure for death dhammapada

The Cure for Death
SOON AFTER GISA KOTAMI got married, she gave birth to
a son whom she loved dearly. Then, one day, when he was
just beginning to learn how to walk, he suddenly fell ill and
died. This left Gisa Kotami deeply grieved. Unable to accept
her only son’s death, she roamed the streets with him held
tightly in her arms, asking whomever she came across for
some medicine that could cure her son and bring him back
to life. Luckily she came upon a kindly man who realized
her plight and advised her to go and see the Buddha. “The
Buddha alone,” he told her, “has the antidote to death.”
When the Buddha saw Gisa Kotami, he realized that she
was too grief-stricken to listen to reason and so resorted to
some skillful means to help her. He told her that he could
indeed restore her son back to life if she could get him a
mustard seed. “However,” the Buddha warned, “the mus-
tard seed must not come from any household where death
has ever occurred. If you can bring one back to me, your
child will live again.”
Gisa Kotami felt great relief and was overjoyed at the
prospect of having her son once more playing at her side.
Full of hope, she hurriedly went from house to house, but
nowhere could she find a household in which no one had
ever died. At last it dawned on her that she was not alone
in her grief, for everyone else had suffered the loss of a loved
one at one time or another. When she realized that, she lost all attachment to the dead body of her son and understood
what the Buddha was trying to teach her: nothing born can
ever escape death.
Gisa Kotami then buried her son and went to tell the
Buddha that she could find no family where tears had never
been shed over a lost loved one. The Buddha said to her,
“You have now seen that it is not only you who have ever lost
a son, Gisa Kotami. Death comes to all beings, for fleeting
and impermanent is the nature of all component things.”
Gisa Kotami then became a nun and strove hard to even-
tually perceive the state of no death and no sorrow, which
is the deathless state of Nibbana.

Better it is to live one day comprehending
the Deathless than a hundred years without
ever comprehending the Deathless.
3 Verse 114

The Monk Whose Body Stunk Dhammapada

The Monk Whose Body Stunk
ONCE WHEN THE BUDDHA was wandering about teach-
ing and preaching, he came upon a community of his
monks in which one of them was suffering from a debili-
tating skin disease. Sores that continually oozed blood and
pus covered his body from head to foot. Too weak to wash
himself or his stained robes, a nauseating stench had set-
tled about him which none of his brother monks could bear.
And so he was left alone, unable to fend for himself. It was
in this pitiful state that the Buddha found him and imme-
diately proceeded to look after him.
First, the Buddha went to boil some water and brought
it back to bathe the monk. Then, as he was trying to carry
the monk outside to bathe him, the other monks saw him
and came to help. They all took hold of the couch that the
sick monk was lying on and carried him to a place where
he was gently scrubbed clean. In the meantime, his clothes
were taken away and washed. When they were dry, they
dressed the sick monk in fresh clean robes, which made
him also feel clean and fresh.
The Buddha then admonished the bhikkhus present,
saying, “Bhikkhus, here you have no mother or father to
take care of you when you are sick. Who will take care of
you then if you don’t take care of one another? Remember
whenever you look after a sick person, it is as if you were
looking after me myself.”

He then followed with a small sermon in which he said
that although it was true that the body would one day be
as useless as a fallen log, while it was still alive, it should be
taken care of.
In the state of heightened alertness in which the sick
monk dwelled, brought on in part by the fresh bath and
fresh clothes, he attained enlightenment at the end of the
sermon.
Before long, alas, this body will lie lifeless
on the ground, discarded like a useless log.
3 Verse 41

The Wandering Mind Dhammapada

The Wandering Mind
ONCE THERE WAS A YOUNG MONK named Sangha-
rakkhita. While he was staying in a village monas-
tery, he was offered two robes and decided to offer one of
them to his uncle who was also a monk and whom he held
in high esteem.
When he tried to present the robe to his uncle, how-
ever, his uncle refused to accept it, saying that he already
had the robes required. The young monk interpreted his
uncle’s refusal as a personal affront. He felt so offended that
he decided on the spot he would rather disrobe than be a
part of an order where there were such arrogant monks as
his uncle.
Sangharakhitta wanted to leave the monastery right
away but his uncle asked him to stay and fan him a while
since it was a very hot day. Sangharakhitta did as his uncle
asked, but did so more out of a sense of duty than out of
deference, for he was still brooding over his uncle’s refusal
to accept his gift. And as he fanned his uncle, his mind
started to wander. “What will I do,” he thought, “as soon
as I become a layman again?”
Well, first he was going to sell the robe and buy a she-goat.
The she-goat would then give him many more goats and he
would sell them and finally save enough money to get mar-
ried. Soon his wife would give birth to a son and they would
go to the monastery to show him off to their uncle. On the way, however, an argument would ensue between them, for
he would want to carry the child as he drove the cart, but
his wife would insist otherwise. As he would make a grab
for the child, it would fall off the cart and get run over by
one of its wheels. He would then be so upset that he would
start beating up his poor wife.
At that point of his daydreaming, he accidentally struck
his uncle’s head with the fan. The old monk who was able
to read Sangharakkita’s thoughts admonished him, saying,
“It’s not enough to beat on your wife? You’ve got to beat on
an old monk as well?”
Sangharakkhita was so surprised and ashamed when he
realized that his uncle had been reading his mind that he
wanted to run away. Instead, the good uncle took him to
see the Buddha.
When told what happened, the Buddha spoke gently to
the young monk and said, “The mind can wander off and
think of things that have not yet taken place. It is best to
concentrate on the present instead and strive diligently to
free oneself from greed, hatred, and delusion.”
One who subdues the wandering mind,
which strays far and wide, alone, bodiless,
will be freed from the bonds of temptation.
Verse 37

Practicing Mindfulness in Every Moment

Practicing Mindfulness in Every Moment, (various sources)

 Namo Buddhaya!

 

“Diṭṭhe diṭṭha-mattaṃ bhavissati, sute suta-mattaṃ bhavissati,mute muta-mattaṃ bhavissati, viññāte viññāta-mattā bhavissati.”

Bāhiya,’ said the Buddha, ‘this way you should train yourself: 

“In the seen there will be to you just the seen. In the heard there will be to you just the heard. In the thought there will be to you just the thought. In the cognizing there will be to you just the cognizing.”

In another occasion Lord Buddha mentioned:

What do you think, Malunkyaputta: the forms cognizable via the eye that are unseen by you — that you have never before seen, that you don't see, and that are not to be seen by you: Do you have any desire or passion or love there?"

"No, lord."[1]

"The sounds cognizable via the ear that are unheard by you – that you have never before heard, that you don’t hear, and that are not to be heard by you: Do you have any desire or passion or love there?

"The aromas cognizable via the nose that are not smelled by you – that you have never before smelled, that you don’t smell, and that are not to be smelled by you: Do you have any desire or passion or love there?

"The flavours cognizable via the tongue that are not tasted by you – that you have never before taste, that you don’t taste and that are not to be tasted by you: Do you have any desire or passion or love there?

"The tactile sensations cognizable via the body – that you have never before touched, that you don’t touch and that are not to be touched by you: Do you have any desire or passion or love there?

"The ideas cognizable via the intellect that are uncognized by you — that you have never before cognized, that you don't cognize, and that are not to be cognized by you: Do you have any desire or passion or love there?"

"No, lord."

(Defilements do not arise from the unperceived. This point should be noted. As for the things seen, however, defilements arise both in the act of seeing and after having seen because a mental picture is retained in the memory and on reflection or recall, defilements would recur. These cherished memories are stored up in the archives of the latent tendencies as deeply rooted memories)

Then, Malunkyaputta, with regard to phenomena to be seen, heard, sensed, or cognized: 

In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. 

In reference to the heard, only the heard. 

In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. 

In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. 

That is how you should train yourself. When there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Malunkyaputta, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

I understand in detail, lord, the meaning of what the Blessed One has said in brief:

Seeing a form 

— mindfulness lapsed — 

attending
to the theme of 'endearing,'
impassioned in mind,
one feels
and remains fastened there.
One's feelings, born of the form,
grow numerous,
Greed & annoyance
injure one's mind.
Thus amassing stress,
one is said to be far from Unbinding.

Hearing a sound

— mindfulness lapsed — 

attending
to the theme of 'endearing,'
impassioned in mind,
one feels
and remains fastened there.
One's feelings, born of the sound,
grow numerous,
Greed & annoyance
injure one's mind.
Thus amassing stress,
one is said to be far from Unbinding.

Smelling an aroma... 

— mindfulness lapsed — 

attending
to the theme of 'endearing,'
impassioned in mind,
one feels
and remains fastened there.
One's feelings, born of the aroma,
grow numerous,
Greed & annoyance
injure one's mind.
Thus amassing stress,
one is said to be far from Unbinding.

Tasting a flavour... 

— mindfulness lapsed — 

attending
to the theme of 'endearing,'
impassioned in mind,
one feels
and remains fastened there.
One's feelings, born of the flavour,
grow numerous,
Greed & annoyance
injure one's mind.
Thus amassing stress,
one is said to be far from Unbinding.

Touching a tactile sensation...

— mindfulness lapsed — 

attending
to the theme of 'endearing,'
impassioned in mind,
one feels
and remains fastened there.
One's feelings, born of the sensation,
grow numerous,
Greed & annoyance
injure one's mind.
Thus amassing stress,
one is said to be far from Unbinding.

Knowing an idea 

— mindfulness lapsed — 

attending
to the theme of 'endearing,'
impassioned in mind,
one feels
and remains fastened there.
One's feelings, born of the idea,
grow numerous,
Greed & annoyance
injure one's mind.
Thus amassing stress,
one is said to be far from Unbinding.

Not impassioned with forms

— seeing a form with mindfulness firm —

dispassioned in mind,
one knows
and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is seeing a form
— and even experiencing feeling —
it falls away and doesn't accumulate.
Thus one fares mindfully.
Thus not amassing stress,
one is said to be
in the presence of Unbinding.

Not impassioned with sounds... 

— hearing a sound with mindfulness firm — 

dispassioned in mind,
one knows
and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is hearing a sound
— and even experiencing feeling —
it falls away and doesn't accumulate.
Thus one fares mindfully.
Thus not amassing stress,
one is said to be
in the presence of Unbinding.

Not impassioned with aromas... 

— smelling an aroma with mindfulness firm —

dispassioned in mind,
one knows
and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is smelling an aroma  
— and even experiencing feeling —
it falls away and doesn't accumulate.
Thus one fares mindfully.
Thus not amassing stress,
one is said to be
in the presence of Unbinding.

Not impassioned with flavours...

— tasting a flavour with mindfulness firm — 

dispassioned in mind,
one knows
and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is tasting a flavour  
— and even experiencing feeling —
it falls away and doesn't accumulate.
Thus one fares mindfully.
Thus not amassing stress,
one is said to be
in the presence of Unbinding.

Not impassioned with tactile sensations...

— touching a sensation with mindfulness firm — 

dispassioned in mind,
one knows
and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is touching a sensation
— and even experiencing feeling —
it falls away and doesn't accumulate.
Thus one fares mindfully.
Thus not amassing stress,
one is said to be
in the presence of Unbinding.

Not impassioned with ideas

— knowing an idea with mindfulness firm — 

dispassioned in mind,
one knows
and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is knowing an idea
— and even experiencing feeling —
it falls away and doesn't accumulate.
Thus one fares mindfully.
Thus not amassing stress,
one is said to be
in the presence of Unbinding.

Explanatory:

He or she will realise or understand (not rehearse) the following:

In the form base, i.e., in what is seen by eye consciousness, "there will be merely the seen". It has merely been seen; thus "merely the seen" is a characteristic of the mind. The meaning is: "My mind will be just a mere eye-consciousness." 

In what is heard by ear consciousness, "there will be merely the heard". It has merely been heard; thus "merely the heard" is a characteristic of the mind. The meaning is: "My mind will be just a mere ear-consciousness."

In what is smelt by nose consciousness, "there will be merely the smelt". It has merely been smelt; thus "merely the smelt" is a characteristic of the mind. The meaning is: "My mind will be just a mere nose-consciousness."

In what is tasted by tongue consciousness, "there will be merely the tasted". It has merely been tasted; thus "merely the tasted" is a characteristic of the mind. The meaning is: "My mind will be just a mere tongue-consciousness."

In what is touched by body consciousness, "there will be merely the touched". It has merely been touched; thus "merely the touched" is a characteristic of the mind. The meaning is: "My mind will be just a mere body-consciousness."

Similarly, an idea formed in the mind is a characteristic of the mind. This will be a mind consciousness.

He or she will realise or understand (not rehearse) mental concomitant factors always arise together with each other and with consciousness. For example, 

·         Feeling, the usual translation of vedana, is the primitive hedonic response to any sense stimulus. It is either pleasant, painful or neutral. One of these three occurs with each moment of consciousness.

·         Perception, sanna, is the re-cognitive faculty. It is closely tied up with memory. We are able to recognize objects because we relate them to experiences previously had.

·         Contact is the coming together of consciousness, sense-base and sense-object. This includes the physical senses as well as mind, the object of which is idea.

·         One-pointedness is the faculty of focusing the mind upon its (single) object.

·         Attention is the power of adverting to an object.

However, it will not go beyond the limit and allow the mind to arise by way of lust, hatred or delusion, which are some of the main roots in which the mind arises (uppada). By diminishing the main roots in which the mind arises, the trainer will make it difficult for his/her mind to arise (uppada) leading to the path of Nibbana (deathless).