What is the ideal way to attain Nirvana while leading a lay life – Part-01

Question: What is the ideal way to achieve Nirvana without delay while attending to the day-to-day activities of lay life? As we have no idea when this human life will end, we understand that we must accomplish the Noble Path in this life itself. We are passionate about it and want to act fast without any delay. Venerable Sir, would you be kind enough to tell us the way?

That is correct. Now, we need to know the Path. You see, one does not necessarily need to become a monk to achieve Nirvana. Many laypersons have attained Enlightenment while leading family lives as husbands and wives. Some have lived family lives and then become Never Returners (Anāgāmi), completing their Samsaric journey subsequently. They have become Arahants and completed their Samsaric journey while leading a lay life. There have been many such instances in Lord Buddha's dispensation. Whatever way we are going to take towards Nirvana, we should be able to see very clearly where we are heading beforehand.

Now, if you look around, you can see different people practicing various things to achieve Nirvana. Many monks also practice different methods. However, if we inquire about whether they have truthfully and honorably grasped a method to encounter Mārgapāla (the 4 stages of enlightenment) or Jhāna, they might say they are still expecting them or still practicing or give some other similar answer. In some instances, one might even engage in arguments and debates after claiming to have achieved Arahantship.

However, if we question them about whether they are certain about the annihilation of their Raga (Greed), Dwesha (Aversion), Moha (Delusion), we will get no convincing answer. If you observe their behavior, they get angry even at the slightest provocation, act hostile, and seem to be very impassioned as well. If one is impassioned and conflicting, delusion is very much present. Therefore, we cannot really conclude just by looking from the outside whether someone has achieved such a state or not.

Thus, he should be able to understand that desire, anger, and delusion are like fires that can cause great destruction. If one sees desire as a harmful fire, that's the key. Because anger stems from desiring something. If one is not impassioned by desire, then there is no reason for anger to creep in. Thus, there would be no delusion as well.

So, in simpler terms, we must have a method to keep us from giving in to desires before anything else. If we get to know some way to effect renunciation or dispassion, we will no longer be impassioned by worldly things.

However, dispassion has been achieved in this Lord Buddha's dispensation, not by observing the commitment to abstain from immoral acts. The commitment to abstain from immoral acts alone has not facilitated dispassion. Some of the people who came before Lord Buddha were thugs. When they first encountered Lord Buddha in his abode, Alawake Yakkha threatened Lord Buddha to rip open his heart and take him from his feet and fling him to the other side of the river. There was no observance of any precepts or any reverence whatsoever.

Aṅgulimāla drew his sword and chased Lord Buddha with a necklace of human fingers around his neck. But after hearing a few Dhamma verses, they understood the basic principles of Dhamma. Only then did they become restrained.

Hence, it is quite clear that Dhamma has not been understood while observing some commitment to abstain from immoral acts or similar ritualistic practices. Some basic principles were understood, and from that emerged a kind of discipline in the mind, word, and body.

If we are abstaining from something with effort, that is a commitment. If a kind of discipline is acquired without having to observe any commitment, that is called Sīla or the preferred kind of morality in Buddhism.

Nowadays, the commitment to abstain from immoral acts has been taken as Sīla or morality. We even call such ritualistic practice observing Sīla. A commitment you might be observing for a given period, but it is not the case for Sīla or morality. Once emerged, it will persist, no matter what.

Say we want to avoid committing some unwholesome deed. To avoid committing that deed, we come up with some action plan; that is a commitment to abstain. "Even if I die, I will not do this deed, which is supposed to be wrongful." Even if I must die, I'll never kill, steal, gamble, or indulge in any sort of bodily misconduct. I'll never lie or consume intoxicants. We conclude on such commitments or resolutions all the time.

Which means we are killing animals because of a reason; we have a reason for killing. For stealing, thuggery, and deceit, there must be a reason. Without a reason, no one will commit these deeds. Ill deeds such as gambling, drinking, and bodily misconduct are all committed based on a reason.

What this reason is... You see, if that reason is pleasurable, if it's presumed worthy... We do these things because we think it is worth doing, ain't it? If we get to know that doing something is totally not worth it, then we will never be prompted to do that. Thus, we must know for sure if it's worth it or not. Just committing ourselves to abstain from ill deeds will not really work. For this purpose, Lord Buddha preached a particular piece of Dhamma: “Attakkara theenapada Sambuddhena pakasitha," which means the Buddhas preach three words with eight letters: "...na hi sila vatan hotu uppajjatthi Tathagata,” which means Buddha is born not just to show how to lead a life committing to abstain from immoral deeds. “Attakkara theenapada Sambuddhena pakasitha," The Buddhas preached three words with eight letters. This is what they have done.

We become enlightened only when we realize that worldly things are, in fact, not worth as much as we think they are. Dhamma has been preached to facilitate enlightenment. When we have properly heard this Dhamma, we will come to know that we have thought of worldly things as so precious, as opposed to their true nature. If this understanding emerges from such Dhamma, the magnitude of importance we give to worldly things will subdue. When this first happens, if we had previously committed ill deeds over something that we considered important, such ill deeds will vanish.

Accordingly, if we are to express the extent of the ill deeds that would no longer be committed by a Stream-enterer (Sotāpanna), we will run out of mouths. The reason is the inept worldly people (Pruthagjana) who have given worldly things the utmost importance. For them, there is no limit to the extent of precious things, unlimited amounts of importance given. The inept worldly beings are in that sort of a mentality.

Someday, if Dhamma has been understood, he will come to realize that all this while, he has given such immense importance only to some petty worthless things. This thought would come into being. A sense of worthlessness of worldly things is emerging through the understanding of Dhamma. So, when the extent of importance given to worldly things lessens through understanding Dhamma, from the earlier point in which unlimited importance had been given, had there been some number of aspirations, some number of defilements, all those have been abandoned.

Commenting on those defilements, Lord Buddha says, the number of defilements that remain intact, in the case of a stream-enterer is analogous to the amount of water that remains in the fingertips after you have dipped and taken out your fingers from the mighty ocean. The extent that has been shattered is equivalent to the amount of water that is there in the mighty sea. How do we even start to explain then? If we put some sand on a fingernail, the much that is still there for the stream-enterer to get rid of is equivalent to the amount of sand on the fingernail; the much that has already been abandoned is equivalent to all the grains of sand on the mighty earth.

If that is the case, isn't it astronomical, the much that a stream-enterer has already gotten rid of, out of the total amount of defilements that were there originally? This is almost inconceivable to us when we see the stream-enterers leading family lives, living in the household, in the realms of form/physical senses (kāma-loka). The much that has been abandoned is not conspicuous. It's very much not vividly seen.

The wife of the hunter-gatherer, Kukkuta Mitta. She eloped into some forest with a hunter-gatherer, even had 10 kids, and was helping her husband with his livelihood. Look here, this is someone that has only got the defilements equivalent to the much on the fingernail, as compared to those on the mighty earth. Someone who became a stream-enterer at the age of seven, this Kukkuta Mitta's wife. If that is the much that has been abandoned and this is the much that remains to get rid of, from the much that is still there, can someone really notice a difference? A daughter of a provincial ruler eloped with some hunter-gatherer, someone who has already been a stream-enterer. From the much that is still there, can someone really notice a difference? Do we have evidence to prove if she's really what she's said to be? So, this is the thing. The things that we are attached to, from our aspirations, from our bonds to the worldly things. What's equivalent to the grains of sand on earth is not visible to us, the inconceivable part, as to how much we are bound to worldly things. That is why the much that has already been removed is not understood by our minds. A conceivable amount has already been set aside. For instance, when someone claims that he does not desire anything, if we look closely into his number of desires, into the number of aspirations to relish worldly things, they would be insurmountable, without his knowledge even. "Am I really living with that many aspirations?" This insight doesn't really occur to him. The desires, in other words, would mean the aspirations we have in terms of worldly things. The extent to which these aspirations are driven by ignorance and greed will drag us down the samsaric journey. If we aspire caused by ignorance and greed, these are the elements that take us further and further into the samsara.

When these aspirations have been annihilated, all the desires and aspirations that were there to drag us into samsara are over. No more enchantment. This is what must be removed. If you are aspiring to Nirvana, then you shouldn't be removing that aspiration. That facilitates the achievement of Nirvana. The one who aspires to worldly pleasures has a longing for sensual desires (Chanda Raga). From the longing for sensual desires, worldly pleasures are sought after. From the longing for Nirvana (Chanda iddhipādā), Nirvana is aspired. These different aspirations must be differentiated. The longing for Nirvana (Chanda iddhipādā) is a part of the 37 attributes conducive to Awakening (Sattis Bodhipakkhiya dhammā), a part of the four bases of spiritual power (Sathara iddhipādā). That is something needed. Worldly pleasures are sought after with ignorance and greed. This distinctive difference must be clearly identified.

Now then, what is included within the umbrella term called 'world' from a Dhamma perspective? The world includes the eye, the ear, the tongue, the nose, the body, the mind. What are we searching for, from the world? Why do we need whatever that is? To see objects, to hear sounds, to smell odors, to taste flavors, to feel touch, to think of the above. These things are out there in the external world. We have got the conducive organs to consume those. Because of the aspiration for sensual desires, such have been made by karmic energy. We have got the eye, ear, tongue, nose, body, mind to consume the world. These sensual organs have originated to consume worldly pleasures.

From the eye, ear, tongue, nose, body, and mind, we harness the visual objects, sounds, odor, flavors, touch, and mental objects that are out there in the world. If we have a longing for the cognition of these senses, to generate pleasure, we cannot really escape the world. This is the reason for its existence in the world. Irrespective of whether we like it or not, irrespective of whether it has been stated by a religion or not, if we aspire for sensual desires from our sensual organs, if we are aspiring those with ignorance and greed, we presume they were to be worthy.

If we have those aspirations, because of the aggregation of those aspirations, our existence persists. This is what is meant by being bound to the world by ignorance and greed. The extent of these aspirations is so immense that even the one who claims to have no visual desires would aspire to see from his eyes. After seeing something, will that be enough? No, aspirations are limitless. Seeing enough is never enough. If one hears a sound, he will look towards that direction. Why? Want to know what made that sound, the aspiration for cognition. After knowing what made the sound, and sizing it up, if it’s decided as important, he will look at it again and again. Want to see more and more. Want to acquire and accumulate. Then look to accumulate. Want to enjoy them. Then look for enjoyment. Without stopping there, then he checks if it's worth wishing for in the future as well.

Like this, worldly beings aspire to have things in the future by wishing for, yearning for them. Aspire to accumulate, to enjoy, to know. This is an illustration of how we make up aspirations. We wish for, yearn for (a yearning hope) objects that we see from eyes, sounds that we hear from ears, flavors that we taste from the tongue, odors that we smell from the nose, touches that we sense from our body, thoughts that come to our mind. To cognize, to discern, to entertain. Based on the extent of our aspirations for the enjoyment of these sensations, we will be yearning for them without a limit, hoping to have the same more and more in the future as well. This is one aspiration. After gaining the same, want to call it me, mine and start adding to me and my stuff. The next aspiration. Then accumulate the things that generate desired sensations and relish the sensations generated so. The accumulation of worldly things is for the purpose of generating desired sensations to enjoy them.

Desired, delightful; visual objects to the eye, sounds to the ear, flavors to the tongue, odors to the nose, touches to the body, mental objects to the mind. These are sought-after for the enjoyment of them. Aspiration for consuming them. Relishing them. Apart from that, there's one more aspiration. "What is that? What is this? Who's that? Going where?" The aspiration to always know things with an inquisitive mindset. This can be called the aspiration of cognition or awareness.

The day all these aspirations have been fully diminished, Arahatship can be achieved. Right then, all the defilements will have been gone. Now, we should see that the level of defilements that has already been eroded or abandoned has been decided by the much that we have gotten rid of from our aspirations. The extent of aspirations we still possess is what we must discard while walking the Noble path. This is the easier method of understanding Dhamma in our own language, in simpler terms. If we are going to tell this in Pali language, it may not be understood at the same level. This is the point. If we understand Dhamma in simpler, more familiar terms, the basic concepts would be grasped quite satisfactorily. Afterwards, if you cross-check with the Pali Canon, even the same idea has been laid out; you'll see. This idea would coincide step by step with the Pali Canon.

Accordingly, out of the vast aggregation of worldly aspirations, once a person becomes a Stream-enterer, he will see clearly that there is no worldly object out there that is worth yearning for. He does see visual objects, watches them, accumulates things that facilitate the visual process, but deep down he understands that these are not the kind of things that can be kept in the desired manner, not possible to accumulate and keep in store the way he prefers. These are not the kind of objects that would grant me eternal appeasement. That insight is present within the stream-enterer.

If it has some pleasant fragrance about it, that too will not keep me fully satisfied forever. If it has some pleasant flavor to it, that too will not keep me satisfied forever. Will it? The same thing goes for its touch. If so, I do not see why I should be yearning to have this object again and again. Not worth it. However, it isn't perceived as totally worthless. This is the much that has been downgraded, of the perceived value. These sorts of touching sensations... There's no place where the sweetest of touches will last forever. It ain't something that you can possess the way you desire.

In this manner, about the five sensual desires, namely of visuals, sounds, scents, flavors, and touch, if he had a notion or a perception, as if they were to be eternal, worthy objects, at first, that perception would disintegrate. We refer to this much of abandoning of defilements through clearly seeing Dhamma (of course, that happens from hearing Dhamma) as "the defilements to be removed through Vision or insight" (Dassanena Pahathabba), the much that is abandoned through vision or insight. Once this has been done, then at a later stage only, the defilements that are to be removed by meditation (Bhāwanāya pahāthabbā) would come into the picture, to abandon what remains.

The person who hasn't really visualized the defilements that are abandoned by Vision will not be able to abandon the defilements that are abandoned by Meditation. The much that is abandoned by vision will be abandoned by listening to Dhamma and properly understanding it to have a profound insight into the basic concept of Dhamma. That is done through listening to Dhamma. If someone claims to become a stream-enterer by practicing meditation, that is implausible. It cannot be proven in accordance with what has been laid out in Dhamma.

Assumption knowledge that can only be given by a rightly self-awakened Lord Buddha or by his disciple ('Parathogoshaka-Prathya'), listening to Dhamma discourses, association with Kalyana Mitta, wise reflection of Dhamma in terms of anicca, dukkha, anatta, and Dependent origination (with Yōniso manasikāra). Likewise, four conditions must be met to become a stream-enterer. Without any of these conditions, one cannot become a stream-enterer. It will not be consistent with the criteria laid out in Dhamma. When someone comes to understand the worldly things as they are, while listening to a Dhamma sermon, while being in association with a Kalyana Mitta, while listening to Dhamma, someone who has the potential to become a stream-enterer, if correctly reflecting on the concepts of Dhamma that he is hearing with wisdom, he may attain the stage of stream-enterer.

In that instance, he sees if it is truthful to call the worldly things to be having some worthiness. He sees the truth as it is. He will come to know what is true and what is not. This is what befell him. Worldly beings, however, possess infinite amounts of aspirations, simply because they do not know what the truth is and what is not. Once we acquire this understanding, the infinite nature of the aspirations would become shattered. That is why it is said that when one becomes a stream-enterer, immense amounts of defilements are abandoned. However, he has not gotten rid of the aspirations to relish sensual desires. That remains. He still wants to consume the five sensual desires. The attachment to sensory objects (kāmarāga), hostile attitude towards sentient beings and frustration (Patigha), still stand. If you are still impassioned, you are bound to be in conflict (Because when you don't have access to the object that you are impassioned towards, you will get frustrated).

Enchantment has not been removed yet. To remove enchantment, to eliminate covetousness and grief, one must practice the fourfold establishment of mindfulness (Sathara Satipaṭṭhāna). From that point onward, the tackling of defilements to be abandoned is achieved by cultivating Dhamma through meditation (Bhavana pahathabba). Before practicing the Noble path or Mindfulness, some defilements should be abandoned by Vision.

What sort of Dhamma should bring about that Vision? What we loosely term in English as the 84,000 teachings of Dhamma are different doors to arrive at this point. At this juncture, we have found the unified path to Nirvana, or the Noble Eightfold Path. You may have taken different doors to enter there, but from now onwards, there will be one unified path. We call this the “Unified Path.” If there is a way to eradicate desires, aversion, and delusion, we call that the Unified Path.

We have different views or perceptions. We need to cut off these perceptions to enter this path. Different individuals are in different perceptions or views. To shed each different view, a particular piece of Dhamma has been uttered. One comes to realize that the view that drives his actions is not, in fact, correct, and he unbinds himself from that view. Worldly beings indulge themselves in 84,000 distinct views. Although it may not be fully visible, each person is in his own subtle view. The Lord Buddha, knowing fully of each different view, preached a piece of Dhamma directly aimed at the given view.

Using this, having shed the wrong view he was in, he comes to realize that his view has always been wrong, that the path he was on has nothing to do with the eradication of defilements. It has been proven to him from this Dhamma sermon. Then he will come to question, if that is not the way, then what is? Now he has come to the right point, where he can be taught the Unified Path.

Now the sermon concerned with the phrase “yada nichchan – tan dukkhan; yan dukkhan – tadanaththa” can be preached, which facilitates the eradication of desires, aversion, and delusion. "Attakkara theenapada." Eight letters, three words. Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. This is where Nirvana-granting Dhamma must be preached.

Now, to the person who has come to this point, does not have to check for anything enigmatic; already the inquisition is on. If one says that they do not come across any Nirvana-granting Dhamma now that he is already in the correct point, to find what Dhamma grants Nirvana, one must get the phrase “yada nichchan – tan dukkhan; yan dukkhan – tadanaththa” clarified. Only that much is required. In those days, the disciples, having listened to this much, didn’t listen to Dhamma for hours, for years. Maybe one or two hours. No previous practice of listening to Dhamma even. The folks that came to the Lord Buddha to listen to what he had to say did not even know what Buddhism is. The one who sat down to listen, by the time he got up after listening to a few phrases of Dhamma, had already become a stream-enterer. So, it is very clear now, the amount of Dhamma we should listen to grasp the concept of Nirvana, to visualize what is Nirvana, is not so much. This much has been overshadowed, hidden. That is why the attainment of Nirvana seems so daunting. That's what has happened.

We are of the view that one must learn and listen to great volumes of Dhamma, first to understand Nirvana and then to attain it. Folks such as Punna dasi were not really known for their intellectual capacity to know so much of Dhamma, but they did attain Nirvana.

If we had simply clarified ourselves as to what these eight letters and three words mean, we would have won the prize. There lies the key. There is no Samadhi without morality. No wisdom without Samadhi. This too is in accordance with Dhamma. However, if some commitment to abstain from immoral acts is identified as morality, now that is wrong. That's where the problem lies.

If one has the five hindrances, the term five hindrances refer to the same ten unwholesome deeds: Sensory desire (kāmacchanda), ill-will (vyāpāda), sloth-and-torpor (thīna-middha), restlessness-and-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca), doubt (vicikicchā). If these are present somewhere, one of the ten unwholesome deeds should be there. Either a motive to destroy life, or to take what is not given, or to wrongly conduct regarding sensual pleasures, or to speak falsely, slanderously, harshly, or idly, or there must be a motive of greed, hatred, and delusion. If a motive comes into being to commit an unwholesome deed, from the mind, body, and speech, in that instance, we are very much in the five hindrances or the ten unwholesome deeds. Therefore, only when we are relieved from the ten unwholesome deeds will we understand the Dhamma that we hear. Only when we are relieved from the five hindrances will we understand the Dhamma that we hear. The one that is hampered by the five hindrances will not understand Dhamma. The one that is hampered by a motive to commit unwholesome deeds will not understand Dhamma.

Thus, the Lord Buddha asks if someone sat down to listen to Dhamma with the sincere intention of understanding it, has he got any of those? Hence, someone who has not committed to abstain from killing beings, with the determination of somehow understanding the Nirvana-granting Dhamma with a lot of necessity and due respect, would sit down to hear Dhamma. In that instance, he has no motive for doing anything unwholesome; in that instance, he is relieved from all five hindrances. He possesses a kind of mentality freed from the hindrances. This is a relieved, balanced mind (Samatha). A momentarily balanced, tranquil mindset, free from hindrances (Thadanga samatha). When he sat down to listen to Dhamma, he is in the momentarily balanced, tranquil mindset. Momentary maybe, still not muddied by the hindrances.

There is also confusion between Samatha and Jhāna. Sometimes Jhāna has been wrongly interchanged for Samatha. The term Samatha (in Sinhala, it means to suppress) is used as the hindrances are suppressed when you are in the stage of Samatha. Those who have got Jhānas are in Wishkambana Samatha, where the hindrances are further suppressed, not fully though; it can still pop up outside of the Jhāna. Those who have achieved Margapala (stream enterer, once returner, never returner, Arahant) have suppressed the hindrances fully, depending on the stage they are in. Thus, right now, we are in the momentary suppression of hindrances.

Somehow, we need to have the suppression of the hindrances to contemplate the Dhamma. It doesn't matter if it’s temporary or permanent, at this point. Now that we have got Samatha, we can go ahead with the contemplation of Dhamma. In contemplation, we especially see the truthful nature of the worldly things as they are, which we cannot see without wisdom.

Usually, our vision is blurred by ignorance; we basically see delusion. But now we can visualize with wisdom. Now is the appropriate time for just that. Now then, where does ignorance or invalid knowledge (Avidya) lie? If we are in the view that the worldly things are appropriate/satisfying (Nichcha), pleasurable (Sukha), and worthy of owning (Athma), we are very much in ignorance. On the side of wisdom or valid knowledge (Vidya), you have got; inappropriate/unsatisfying (Anicca), afflictive (Dukkha), and unworthy of owning (Anatta).

To come to the side of wisdom/valid knowledge (Vidya), we must contemplate/specially see with wisdom. Then for the contemplation, we should need to have the terms Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta clarified beforehand. Now it's time to get the phrase "yada nichchan – tan dukkhan; yan dukkhan – tadanaththa” clarified. This is the first thing that has been kept in hiding. This is where it is said to have kept the Nirvana path in hiding.

They say, if something is impermanent (Anithya), then it causes suffering (Dukkha), if something causes suffering, it is non-self (Anathma). That is the clarification out there, everywhere. But for a moment, did we think, why do we need wise reflection in terms of dependent origination, to become a stream-enterer?

We are blindly following what is said in "if something is impermanent, it causes suffering", did we really reflect wisely if that saying holds true to Dhamma or even our common sense? Is it really a true statement? The Pali phrase "Yada nichchan – tan dukkhan” is perfectly fine. But the Sinhalese meaning given to it and thereby also the English meaning given to it is wrong. It is only a scholarly interpretation. The scholars who knew Pali gave a meaning to the word.

They, according to what they had understood, translated the word "Anicca" to the Sanskrit word "Anithya" which, of course, meant impermanence. Thus, they said, "if something is impermanent, it will cause suffering". The Pali phrase "Yada nichchan – tan dukkhan" has been translated by the scholars as, if something is impermanent, it causes suffering. We hear this in almost all the so-called Dhamma sermons. If we can perform a small inquisition, to see if this is true, that would be worthwhile.

When we say, "a thing", will there be anything that is not covered by the term? The word "a thing" encompasses everything. According to the Buddha, the whole of the world, all five aggregates of clinging are Dukkha. The world (worldly things) is full of suffering. "Dukkho loke patiththitha," the world is based on suffering. Then, if you either look at what's included in the five aggregates or look at what's included in "a thing," you will see, everything is full of suffering. Everything that has come into being is full of suffering. But we don't know if that is so.

If something is not permanent, then it causes suffering. This is what is said all around. For instance, we'll take paralysis. Isn't it a thing? What about cancer? If Anithya means impermanence, and what is impermanent causes suffering. If so, then if paralysis/cancer were to be permanent, is it pleasurable? Or will it cause suffering?

You've got paralysis/cancer, and you say that if something is impermanent, it causes suffering. If paralysis/cancer is permanent, it will persist. Since it's permanent, one cannot cure it. If it's permanent, it cannot be cured. If impermanent, one can somehow get it cured. You can take medication and all. If an impermanent thing causes suffering, shouldn't a permanent thing generate pleasure? This is simply the inverse of that statement. Something permanent simply should give pleasure. Is it pleasurable if paralysis/cancer were to be permanent? An impermanent paralysis/cancer can be cured. And cancer as well.

Does it give you pleasure if your cancer/ paralysis isn't cured? Will it cause you pain to get it cured? There is a samsaric journey. We are very much vulnerable in this samsaric journey. We don't know where we'd have to be born, the next time. No idea where the journey leads to. Mostly it will be to the four realms of hell, rarely becoming a human being. Even so, it will never be a walk in the park.

In case this miserable samsaric journey were to be impermanent, will that be suffering? We can only put an end to the suffering endured in samsara if that suffering is impermanent, right? If, in some places, the suffering and the path to it were to be permanent, will we be able to liberate ourselves? Emancipation from suffering is totally possible. It's possible only because suffering is impermanent. Because of the cessation of suffering, only emancipation is possible. Is that suffering? Isn't that the ultimate bliss?

Now the statement of impermanence leading to suffering, to which part of Dhamma could it be traced to? Is it consistent? Here, we tried to trace it to what has been laid down in Dhamma. Not consistent at all. Hence, are we going to hang on to the meaning of impermanence that has been given to the word "Anicca"? When you verify it by discipline (Vinaya), will it hold true? What is the basis for holding true? Why should it? Not consistent with Discipline (Vinaya).

"One should trace them in the Dhamma and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Dhamma nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Lord Buddha's utterance.” The Lord Buddha said so, clearly in his teachings of the four great references. Now we have tried to trace it to Dhamma, verify it by discipline. The claim that impermanence leads to suffering is not consistent with Dhamma, nor Discipline.

If it is not traceable, not verifiable, then it ought to be a wrong view. Then is it worth holding on to such a wrong view? Is it appropriate to be used for restraining as part of Discipline (Vinaya - restraint of raga, dwesha, moha)? If it ain't facilitating restraint, what will happen if we use it? We cannot be restrained. How can one be restrained with a wrong view? It will lead to some wrong Samadhi, how can a right Samadhi (a Samadhi that leads to the depletion of defilements) emerge out of it?

A right view would lead to the right Samadhi. From the right Samadhi emerges, the right knowledge, or insight (sammā-ñāṇa), and right liberation, or release (sammā-vimutti), and Nirvana would be achieved. To achieve the right Samadhi and right insight, one needs to start with the right view. Only where you have the right view, the right intentions emerge. There only the right speech, right conduct would emerge. Right livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and Samadhi/ concentration emerge there only. In the absence of the right view, it is impossible to practice the remainder of the Noble Eightfold Path. It's simply implausible.

Hence, if that point is hampered, at which the right view is acquired, if a wrong view is taken, right at the beginning, how can we even talk about Nirvana from that point onwards? To talk about Nirvana, the view or the perception should firstly be pristine, meaning that you must acquire the right view. To acquire the right view, you need to get clarified the meaning of the phrase "Yada nichchan – tan dukkhan” correctly. After it has been translated as "if something is impermanent, it will cause suffering," we have been derailed from the truth. Thus, it is implausible to have the right view. We seem to have a firm foothold on the view that the suffering is caused by the impermanence of things.

A listener: Things are subject to Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. And not like since it is subject to Anicca (inappropriate, unsatisfactory), it will give Dukkha (suffering). Is that so?

Thero: "Yada nichchan - tan dukkhan," if something is unsatisfactory/ inappropriate, it will cause suffering.

Another listener: Now if we look at it as characteristics, firstly because it's Anicca, it generates Dukka, therefore it is Anāthma (Non-self). So ain't there only one characteristic? Anithya, Dukkha, Anāthma. All three are the same. Ain't it?

 Thero: Now if one thing happens, because of another, aren't they two things?

A listener: Not because of something, in one thing, there is the characteristic of that. Right? The characteristic of Anithya lies in its form, …. In Anithya, there is the nature of impermanence, in Dukkha there is the nature of change...

 Thero: No, it's like this. Now think like this. The characteristic of Dukkha/ suffering is sensed by the mind. The characteristic of impermanence is there in material things, isn't it? If there is some material object or some external object, isn't the characteristic of impermanence there in that thing? Now take the mind as a thing; a thing will encompass the mind as well, both mental (nāma) and material (rūpa) things (together nāmarūpa). If there is a mental (nāma) or material (rūpa) thing or phenomena, the impermanent nature of those. So, if something is impermanent, when you are going to grasp it only, it will cause suffering. Understood? Then the dukkha/ suffering is created in the grasping mentality only. Thus, that can be removed.

 A listener: We take something impermanent as if it were permanent.

Thero: When we take something impermanent as permanent, we will incur a cognitive perception of suffering. Which means that suffering is something that we develop ourselves, not something that is there in the object. We will be subject to suffering because we grasp the object thinking it's worthy. Understood? The characteristic of impermanence is in the object, let it be some animal, individual, object, whatever mental or material phenomena. Within those, the characteristic of impermanence lies.

 A listener: So, the world has primarily got the characteristics of Anicca, Because of the Aniccha nature, the suffering/Dukkha will be developed secondarily.

Thero: Correct. When we call Anithya and we mean it to be impermanent, I am questioning the fact if it's true, that impermanence causes suffering? Now we know that whatever the things that cause suffering are also impermanent. If the things that cause suffering are impermanent, does that also generate suffering? That's the question I'm posting. Now there's one point. There are things of two types. When things that are likable, sweet, things that we hold dear, change for the worse, then suffering would be incurred. When something that we despise, resentful and bitter changes, will we be unhappy? Understood? Now if we get recovered from some disease, we will not be unhappy. We will only be focusing on one type of thing if we are to take the view that impermanence is the cause of suffering. When something sweet, likable, agreeable, goes into decay, that will not make us happy, alright. If something resentful and bitter were to become deteriorated, we will feel happy. Understood?

"Yam loke priya rupam satarupam." If there is something in the world, which is likable and pleasant, the Lord Buddha preaches, don’t take everything as suffering; there is some likability to things, some sweetness to things. "Ettesa thanha uppajjamana uppajjathi, etta nivisamana nivissati." There greed arises, that is where it exists. That likable nature, sweet nature. That is the arising of suffering, the cause of suffering. Not everything is filled with suffering. If there is some suffering in the world, there is also a reason for that. The cause of suffering is not suffering. The cause of suffering is the likability and sweetness of things.

Thus, the Lord Buddha questions if there is no likability, no sweetness to things, will the worldly beings be attached to those? If there are no bad consequences (ādīnava), will the worldly beings ever renounce worldly pleasures? Because of likability and sweetness only, worldly beings are impassioned and stuck on worldly pleasures. Then that is not suffering. Suffering will come after getting stuck on it. On what exactly did we get stuck on? The thing we got attracted to and bound ourselves to have the characteristic of Anicca (unsatisfying, inappropriateness). If we have correctly understood Anicca, then we will understand that Anicca, in fact, is causing suffering. For the meaning of "Anicca," the meaning of the word "Aniyathan" has been interchanged. "Jiwithan aniyathan, maran niyathan" Life is not certain, but death is. The meaning of impermanence should have been given to the Pali term "Aniyatha," not "Anicca." What we have here is Anicca. "Icca" means the will or expectation; "Anicca" means not in accordance with the will. This is the cause. If something is not agreeable to the expectation, then it causes suffering.

Now let's put on our thinking hats. We don't expect to have suffering; do we like that? No. Will it stop just because we want the suffering to end? We don't like suffering, but it befalls. We don't want something that we like to fall into disrepair. But can we avoid that happening? It goes into disrepair, so is this in accordance with our will or expectation? There, Anicca means not in accordance with our liking; it will not satisfy our expectation, unsatisfactory. Now we are feeling pleasure, and it is going to pass. Do we like that? No. Will it stop from going to pass? Nope. It slips away. If there is something called pleasure, something called suffering, both are not in line with our liking, our expectation. Both will not satisfy us. If there is something called pleasure, something called suffering, both are not in line with our liking, our expectation. Both will not satisfy us. This is anicca, not to my liking. Then, if there is something likable, something sweet, there is a cause for suffering. That is the thing that we like is not to our liking.

A listener: Then Icca is the likable, sweet nature of things. Then, if there is something likable, something sweet, there is a cause for suffering. That is the thing that we like is not to our liking. If there is existence, the suffering that we don't like will always come by, and the pleasures we like will always come to pass. Ain't it what always happens? This is the norm. The suffering that we don't like will always come by, and the pleasure we like will always come to pass. Thus, we state, everything is not to the liking. This is why we said that a thing is subject to Anicca. If something is not to your liking, that is what suffering is. "Yampi ichchan nalabathi thampi dukkan." This is where Anicca has been clarified. Anicca has been clarified as "yampi ichchan nalabathi thampi dukkan." If one does not get what one craves or likes, that leads to suffering. Instead of that, Anicca has been taken as impermanence. This is where it all went wrong. We must know that suffering is not being able to have something the way we like it. That's why we said that if it's subject to Anicca, it will cause suffering. Then why do we come to like things? We are in a delusion that worldly things are worthy. We are of the view that worldly things are of value. This is ignorance (Avidya). Because of ignorance, we come to have an aspiration to keep the worldly things to our own liking. So long we have ignorance, we will not be able to shed that liking. What is our liking? We want to live a good life. To lead it, just the way we like it. But is it possible to have anything exactly the way I want? There is a convention the world holds. It doesn't matter how much we don't like suffering to come, troubles to come, despised sense objects to come, these things that we don't like will come anyway. It's inevitable. It doesn't matter how much we like the pleasures that we yearn for simply come to pass. That too is inevitable. This is Dhamma. Getting clarified this Dhamma is what you call as understanding Dhamma, being enlightened with Dhamma. The understanding of Dhamma lies inside this small thing. Nothing escapes this Dhamma. We can see through anything in the world with this much of understanding Dhamma. Wherever it is, whatever it is. In the final reading, what is left? The despised suffering comes by; the liked pleasure goes by. We might be holding on to things, calling it me, mine. But in fact, there is nothing in the world that we can hold that is free from Anicca and therefore, suffering. Now wisely reflect on this if this is true or not. When we think, we realize that this statement is perfectly truthful. Then this is the utterance of the Lord Buddha, no one can discard that, change that. Disliked things come by; liked things go by. Meaning it's not to the liking.

A listener: What you hope for doesn't happen; what's not hoped for does happen. Thero: That's exactly what happens. Why does it happen? Because it's the norm. It's bound to happen, the convention. Will we like anything if we know their true nature if we know Dhamma? After seeing the truth, after seeing the characteristics the things hold, are we ever going to keep things to our liking? Since we have a perception of self, we are inclined to keep things in line with our self-preferences. Because we have the delusion of self, we ourselves have taken up the impossible task of keeping the world in line with self-preferences. We are expecting to keep in line with our preferences, which cannot be kept so. We like ourselves to exist, our things to exist and that too, to our liking. So once this norm has been understood, will we toil over again to keep things to our liking? Will such a false view remain standing? Will the view to call things mine still be there? When you see the Dhamma, you see the truth, you see the Buddha. That is enlightenment. The enlightenment lies here, not in some highfalutin jargon. Thus, we must see that we cannot keep anything to our liking. We must understand only this much. What is so difficult about it? We did not see this much on our way too long, samsaric journey. We didn't have divine vision or some psychic power to see that. We were unable to see our previous births. Let's just imagine if we really were in some place where we could keep things to our liking, if we really went to such a place, shouldn't we still be living there? Never leaving that being. In the infinite samsaric journey, had we ever had such a being, as a God, as a human, as a Brahma, wherever we were born, countless times previously. If we had been such a being, having a self, where things were always in line with the self-preferences, will anybody come out of such being, such self. Therefore, it is clear. We have never encountered anything that we could have kept to our liking. Otherwise, whatever the things that we held dear and called mine, should be with us right now, us holding on to them. What really happened to those worthy objects?

A listener: Not that we didn't find, we found. And what we found, it changed. 

Thero: Yes, that is the convention. That is the Dhamma. We were trying to build up something, trying to go against convention, against the order of things. But no sentient being could ever overcome the convention, the order of things. Because we are bound by these rules underlying everything. The inherent nature of things is governed by those conventions. That's the norm. Not Anithya/ impermanence, but Anicca (Unsatisfying, not being to the liking, inappropriate). Accordingly, now you can see Anithya and Anicca are two completely different concepts. When you have got Anicca clarified, you see Dhamma. Not to the liking. Then when some undesirable thing was to befall you, you will realize it is only the norm, there will be no resistance, no suffering. We'll see that what we wish for is not a variable that determines the outcome.

Once we see Anicca, we come to know that no person, no sentient being is above this norm, and we'll come to know that no one has the capability to change things for us, the way we want, at our request; we will no longer be bowing down in front of anyone, asking to do so. Even that person in front of whom we may have bowed down in the past, even his things are subject to Anicca. Tell whom now?

On that day, we'll conclude that even Gods, even Brahmas, even humans, even wheel-turning emperors, even scientists of any type, even great scholars, whoever it is, nobody has got anything that can be kept to their liking, in their respective petty existences. Then in terms of our existence, everybody is vulnerable, at the mercy of the conventions of worldly existence.

There is nothing worthy of holding on to in our petty existence, nothing safe and sound about it. We will not be toiling over in vain, in search of some solace from the world anymore. This is the basic principle. No one can deny it. "Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā." All actions that we do from our mind, body, and speech are unsatisfying, inappropriate in terms of the satisfaction that we are after. They will not be to our liking.

We like the state in which the things that are likable and sweet will remain so, without going into decay and destruction, in line with our liking. But there is no such world in existence. That is the nature of the world. That's the norm. The conventions of the world, the nature of the world as it is, should be seen, to see Dhamma.

A listener: Desiring things that are subject to Anicca, getting attached is the cause of suffering.

Thero: Exactly. That is the cause of suffering.

Why do we get impassioned by worldly things? Because we did not see the right knowledge (Vidya) / did not see with wisdom. This right knowledge is hidden; it is the knowledge of Anicca. Denying Anicca, we persist in our mission to somehow keep things to our liking. Trying to build up things to our liking. This is ignorance (Avidya), holding on to wrong knowledge. Because of ignorance, suffering would come in.

A listener: The only thing we liked was to understand the four noble truths.

Thero: Yes. This is exactly where we can understand the Noble truths. This is how you see the Noble truths. The Noble truths are understood through this Dhamma.

A listener: Until we have a desire for worldly things, we cannot escape suffering.

Thero: Yes, the desire comes from ignorance. Because of the inability to understand the much we discussed today. To understand that we must come to terms with reality, we must understand Anicca. Disliked things come by. Liked things come to pass. Not the liking. But happens anyway. That's the norm. No one is above this underlying nature of the world. No one has been, no one ever will be. When we understand this convention, one thing will happen. Without seeing the truth, we have always been in a wrong view. This wrong view forces us to somehow fix things to our liking. So, we are striving hard to keep things to our liking. We may only become exhausted, but our target forever seems to avoid us.

In one interpretation Sañ means aggregates. To build up the aggregate or to do sañkara (actions from mind, speech, and body) we put in great amounts of labor. If we are toiling over to do the impossible, to keep to our liking, something that constantly will not be to our liking, there originates the "Sankhara dukkha". Put in labor to build up something unbreakable. But there's nothing unbreakable. We create a kind of mentality driven by ignorance to build up a thing that will satisfy our liking and would remain so. To build up something likable and keep maintaining it.

A listener: We take the view that even if it's not possible now, in the future, it might be possible.

Thero: The conclusion of such a wrong view is the aspirations for the future. Because of the aspirations for the future, the samsaric journey is propelled further into the future. This is the reason for the samsaric journey, that is yet to come. This is how the samsaric journey is sustained. The delusion thus extends the samsaric journey into the future, fueled by the aspirations for the future.

A listener: The accumulation of Sankhara is for this purpose. Ain't it?

Thero: Exactly. Sankara is performed for this purpose. Viparinama-dukkha (the suffering that comes from the likable things changing for the worse) also creeps in. Dukkha-dukkha (the agitation to keep things in line with one's liking) is already there. Now the suffering is complete with three types of dukkha. The natural exhaustion, the fatigue, something that we don't really like comes in while we do sankara (actions of the body, mind, and speech). It’s the suffering one must indulge in, from the exhaustion resulting from building up things. Accordingly, the suffering is threefold. Dukkha-dukkha, viparinama-dukkha, and sankhara-dukkha.

~ Late Ven. Waharaka Abhyarathanālankāra Thero ~