Catupatisambhidá -- Attha (Expansion/Sign Situation/Identification of referent/Interpretation of Signs) Dhamma (Reference/Ideas[1]); Nirutti (Usage); Patibhána (Symbolization/Perspicuity [of Expression])

Nítattho Neyyattho

Literal Qualified

Interpretation (of words or gesture)

etam attham viditvá -- having grasped [felt (known) the interpretation of] the (sign) situation.

Anyone with an orderly mind can master the Abhidhamma Pitaka, but only an arahat can master the Suttas, and even he not all of them.

Kamma vipáka is harder to accept than Rebirth.

Only when there is joy in the Suttas is there joy in the Vinaya.

The great error of the Abhidhammikas is that they imagine themselves to be practising vipassaná.

It is most fortunate that the realization of nibbána depends upon one's understanding the four Truths oneself, and not upon one's success in explaining them to others.

'It has often been said that Metaphysics is a hybrid of science and poetry. It has many marks of the hybrid; it is sterile, for example.' Meaning of Meaning, p. 82

Logic flattens the Dhamma as a map-maker flattens the world.

As a globe represents the world, so the Suttas represent the Dhamma; and as a flat map is true only in the centre, so a logical view is true only of that Sutta (or part of it) upon which it is centred.

By seeing that all things are anattá one realizes nibbána, which is none of these things.

One soon discovers what one had learned to expect, that having read the Suttas there is no fresh wisdom to be found in other books.

Attá is desirable but a myth; anattá is the unhappy fact; and nibbána is the escape from suffering -- neither unhappy nor a myth.

The world is void of attá, but nibbána is void of anattá.

'He who needs others is for ever shackled; he who is needed by others is for ever sad.' Chuang Tzu XX b. (tr. Waley, 3 Ways of Thought, p. 63)

It is your understanding that matters, so do not quarrel with others if they disagree with you.

The Abhidhamma Pitaka perverts the understanding.

If the Suttas are not the Buddha's Teaching, then I am not a Buddhist.

The Commentaries are sometimes right -- sometimes.

You do not wish to be misunderstood? Then keep your mouth shut.

You do not mind being misunderstood? That is progress indeed.

A Bodhisatta progresses by trial and error. At last he hits upon the right answer, and tries it, and becomes a Buddha. (Corollary. A Bodhisatta is not infallible.)

The Buddha tells us how to avoid the Bodhisatta's mistakes; and so save time.

The glittering icy peaks of the Suttas are too often hidden from our eyes by the dusty haze rising from the Commentarial plains.

Q. Why the Buddha rather than Jesus?
A. Jesus wept.

Nibbána is not non-existent; it is non-existence -- of lust, hate, and delusion.

Each of us creates man in his own image; and thus we come to misunderstand each other.

We never feel our isolation and invulnerability so much as when others are angry with us. It is a salutary experience.

Learn to duck in time.

Our gratitude is due to the Buddha, not for having attained extinction, but for having told us about it.

If you disagree you are not bound to say so.

By speaking you estrange others; by keeping silent you estrange yourself.

Indigestion constipates.

Nothing takes one so much unawares as other people's anger.

Let your adversary have the last word: he will cling to it, as he would to your coat, while you slip from his grasp and go your way unhindered.

You do not understand a thing until you can write it down.

Without knowing exactly what is meant by nibbána do not think that you understand the Buddha's teaching.

If we have difficulty in imagining nibbána, that is because there is nothing to imagine: when we imagine, we always imagine something.

How often how misleading the Commentary is!

When doing vipassaná, it is of the greatest importance to keep the mind from straying beyond what is said in the Suttas, and into the Abhidhamma Pitaka or the Commentaries.

You cannot disagree with the Buddha's teaching, you can only shut your eyes.

The most wonderful thing in the world is silence.
And how noisy thoughts are!

Dhammá = Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching.

[Sankhárá = Formations (usually, will), form, what is formed (usually, the living being).
Dhammá = (usually, correct) Ideas (of things).]

All formations are impermanent [A (correct) idea[2] (of things)]
All formations are suffering [A (correct) idea (of things)]
All (correct) ideas (of things) are not-self [The conceit 'I am' does not arise when an idea is cognized (i.e. when a thing is thought of) correctly, or without ignorance.]

Even 'things' are merely '(our ideas of) things'; and that is why they are called 'dhammá'. Sabbesu dhammesu samúhatesu, samúhatá vádapathá pi sabbe'ti. We can only speak of our thoughts.

'The Dhamma' = 'The Correct Idea of Things' (and therefore a Teaching, a Rule, a Law).
Dhammánupassaná = Contemplation of (correct) ideas (of things). And so on. But who will understand?

Attá and anattá are not attributes of things, the one hypothetical, the other actual; they are merely wrong and right view of things, respectively, and arise only in the observer's mind.

'So-and-so is anattá' means either, 'So-and-so has none of the characteristics of an hypothetical attá', or, 'So-and-so, when correctly thought about, does not give rise to the thought of attá'. But any hypothesis about attá is preceded by the thought of attá. In the mind of an arahat the thought of attá cannot arise: he does not need to rationalize about 'characteristics of an hypothetical attá'. Sabbe dhammá anattá means that an arahat does not endow any idea with attá.

The Buddha does not say, 'There is no self', for those who believe in self would think it comes to be annihilated, as Vacchagotta; the Buddha says that when there is right view the idea of self does not arise.

Sankhára is not a gladstone bag: it will not accomodate phassa and manasikára (at least not as marbles).

Pain is painful: this is the basic fact. (Cast your bread upon the waters!)

Idiots to think that the way out can be anything but extinction.

Síla is something to hang on to when we are seized by attacks of emotion -- what samádhi or paññá for us then?

The passionate mind cannot understand that there is pleasure in dispassion, or that the dispassionate mind does not desire passion. Sometimes the mind alternates rapidly between the two states, and in either is convinced that the other is unattractive.

You have an excuse? And to whom, pray, will you offer it?

Before we can reject the world we must accept it; and this is not easy; for it is sometimes most disagreeable.

The world is consumed by passion and, what is worse, thinks passion admirable.

Until you have practised and mastered the Buddha's Teaching, and then found it defective, you are not entitled to look for some other solution.

Most scientists suffer from naive incredulity.

Even if you cannot gain concentration, at least you can be mindful. If you are always mindful you may gain concentration. But whether you do or not, perpetual mindfulness is the remedy against depression. If you are always mindful, even when tired or disinclined, you will have no regrets. This is your final refuge; and it cannot fail; but it is not achieved without perpetual effort, and perpetual effort is not easy. Unless you determine on this effort you are lost. This is written in fair weather: read it in foul.

Demand mindfulness of yourself as a right: accept concentration as a favour.

Lust is insatiety with the pleasurable false idea 'I am'.
Resistance is satiety with the unpleasurable false idea 'I am'.
Ignorance is satiety with the neutral false idea 'I am'.

Even as the pleasurable false idea 'I am' grows, so lust for (unsatiety with) it grows. And even as lust for (unsatiety with) the pleasurable false idea 'I am' grows, so attention repeatedly turns towards the pleasurable false idea 'I am'.

Even as the unpleasurable false idea 'I am' grows, so resistance against (satiety with) it grows. And even as resistance against (satiety with) the unpleasurable false idea 'I am' grows, so attention repeatedly turns away from the unpleasurable false idea 'I am'.

Thus lust is slow, and resistance is quick, to disappear.

Only if you are not quite convinced yourself will you be anxious to convince others: you are seeking confirmation.[3] Those who know don't speak.

Attention turns towards/away from a pleasurable/unpleasurable idea 'I am'.[4] This is fundamental; and this turning (or increase/decrease) of attention is called 'lust' or 'aversion' as the case may be. Thus 'asmíti chando'.

Mind is the track on which the train of thought runs.

Mind is the behaviour of thought. (mode of thinking) (thought-behaviour) (My mind is the behaviour of my thought.) The Mind is the behaviour of thought hypostatized.

Matter is not-mind.
Matter is the behaviour of [sense-]perception.

'Dhamma' is more than just an idea; it is an 'I' interpretation. Thus 'Sabbesu dhammesu samúhatesu, samúhatá vádapathá pi sabbe'ti' means that when asmimána has been removed there is no assertion 'I am this or that'. Cf. Chandamúlaká sabbe dhammá.

Samsára is deducible from the existence of ignorance. How?

Ignorance is present self-differentiation from the past (all ideas of self are interpretations based on memory). Were there no past, ignorance could not arise. Moreover, that past must have been a self-differentiated past (memory of a present self-differentiation),[5] for what is differentiated from cannot be undifferentiated. There is thus no first moment of ignorance to be found. Furthermore, so long as there is still ignorance there is no good reason to expect a change in the order of things which is continued existence.

Self is satisfied craving -- an infinitely pleasurable state --; and 'the Self' is satisfied craving hypostatized. Self is a myth because there is no such thing as satisfied craving. Pleasurable feelings arise; the thought of such feelings as permanent is itself pleasurable; attention to such thoughts rises to a maximum; but attention to thoughts (= thinking) modifies them, and its rising to a maximum accelerates the modification of these pleasurable thoughts and the consequent appearance of fresh ones of the same kind; and thus the spiral proceeds. The increase and maintenance of attention to such pleasurable thoughts is craving; and the thought of craving as satisfiable, that is to say, that this spiral might turn to everlasting steady circular spinning, 'I am' -- an inherent impossibility.

Self is satisfied craving. Craving is unsatisfied self.

All craving is unsatisfied craving, that is to say, it involves the idea (or assumption) that craving is satisfiable. Perception of impermanence, in removing this false assumption, removes craving.

Dependent arising (paticcasamuppáda) has neither duration nor instantaneity: it expresses, as it were, the gradient of the curve of existence taken over an infinitesimally short period. It always describes what is now happening, namely, growth of established consciousness; and that is why death, no matter when we meet it, entails birth. We see, too, why the series is non-reversible [phassapaccayá vedaná no vedanápaccayá phasso].

Chaque dimension est une facon de se projeter rainement vers le Soi. (J.-P. Sartre.) P. 183[6]

As mind (mano) is the behaviour of thought, so eye (cakkhu) is the behaviour of sight, and so also with the other four.

Indriyáni vippasannáni refers to other people.

The mind is the way the body thinks.
The body is the way the mind acts.

All [negational] activities[7] (sankhára) are manifestations of unwisdom (avijjá), which is the tacit assumption of permanence.

The answer is simple but unacceptable.

(i) There must be a way out: for bhavatanhá is choice (of bhava): and to choose implies alternatives -- thus, 'An earliest point of bhavatanhá, monks, is not evident.... And yet it is evident "with this as condition, bhavatanhá".' (A. X,vii,2)
(ii) This alternative to bhava[8] is necessarily not describable in terms of bhava (and therefore not describable at all -- cf. D. ii,32).

Il faut gagner sa mort. (We must earn our death.)

Dependent arising is not in time -- it is time.

All gerundives are impermanent.
All gerundives are suffering.
All gerunds are not-self.

It is altogether impossible for anyone who takes life seriously to understand the Buddha's Teaching.

You are wasting your time! -- Well, why not? What else is it for?

The existence of laws (in the scientific sense) is a characteristic (of the structure) of consciousness. Thus to speak of the law of dependent arising is only to beg the question; it is to suppose that dependent arising might be other than it is -- and yet still be a law. It has been said[9] that there can be consciousness of a law but not a law of consciousness. Yo paticcasamuppádam passati so dhammam passati. Yo dhammam passati so paticcasamuppádam passati: this might be rendered 'He who sees dependent arising sees law: he who sees laws sees dependent arising'. Dependent arising is not a law; it is not even the law: it is law. Dependent arising is the only certainty we have; for the rest there are only probabilities -- there are laws, there are laws of laws, and there are laws of those laws, and dependent arising states this fact. It has also been said[10] that nothing is certain, 'Mais ceci du moins est une certitude'.[11]

The only professional writer who is anywhere near understanding the Suttas is Sartre -- and he has not read them. The scholars -- who have read them -- are a mile away. But, alas! to come near to understanding is not yet to understand.

Námarúpapaccayá phasso (D. ii,2) -- a feedback system of psychokinesis and clairvoyance (clairaudience etc.).

You fill your world with certainties, which for me are not certainties at all.

Ah the blessed innocence of the scientists!

How to waste your time: look for an explanation of consciousness, ask to know what feeling is.

If you explain consciousness you must then explain how you explained it; and this explanation, too, will need explaining; and so in its train will this third explanation: in brief, to explain consciousness you must assume consciousness. And we do well to shut up this intolerable paradox in the unconscious, that last excuse and refuge of modern man.

The Unconscious, though it contains some remarkable things, will not hold water.

--What are you doing? --Answering your question.

--Can you explain consciousness? --No.
--Then how can you assume that it starts at birth and stops at death?

The Suttas are perfectly intelligible, but what they describe is hard to grasp. If, then, you do not follow the Suttas it is a mistake to run to the Abhidhamma Pitaka (or the Commentaries) for illumination: nobody would dream of trying to understand the theory of relativity from a school primer of arithmetic, yet that theory is not unintelligible -- it is not easy, that is all.

The Commentaries are not to be rejected on principle: they are to be rejected if they are seen to be inadequate or misleading. And this will happen only if some understanding of the Suttas is gained in spite of the Commentaries.

A saint, by popular definition, is one who successfully resists temptation. But to resist temptation one must take good care to keep temptation continuously before one. And since to resist temptation is painful, what else is a saint but one devoted to self-torture? Perhaps this is why saints, especially in books, spend so much of their time reforming whores (who are certainly entitled to their usual fee for services rendered).

Next section

Back to Commonplace Book - Contents

Back to Ñánavíra Thera Dhamma Page

Footnotes:

[1] alloting of interpreted signs to the proper context [Back to text]

[2] Correct idea = idea correctly cognized = idea correctly associated with other ideas. [Back to text]

[3] You also wish to prove to yourself that you cannot be convinced -- success in convincing others will be accompanied by disappointment. [Back to text]

[4] Better: Attention to (manasikára -- thinking about) a pleasurable/unpleasurable idea 'I am' increases/decreases. [Back to text]

[5] 'Self' is a psychological context necessarily involving time. [Back to text]

[6] "Each dimension is the For-itself's way of projecting itself vainly toward the Self." Being and Nothingness, p. 137 (Methuen) --Ed. [Back to text]

[7] [negational] activities c/o, r/b: determinations --Ed. [Back to text]

[8] I do not mean vibhava, which is a kind of bhava -- consciousness of nothing, a chimera. [Back to text]

[9] Sartre, p. 22 [= Being and Nothingness, p. lv] [Back to text]

[10] Camus, p. 76 [Back to text]

[11] 'But this at least is a certitude.' --Ed. [Back to text]