Some Excerpts from the Pali Canon

Anicca, dukkha, and anatta.

(From the Samyutta Nikaya 21.2, 5, 3, quoted and rearranged in Goddard p. 27)

 

All conditions are impermanent (anicca)

all conditions cause dukkha

all things are not-Self (anatta).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Body (rupa) is impermanent,

feeling (vedana) is impermanent,

perception (sanna) is impermanent,

mental conditions (sankhara)

are impermanent,

consciousness (vinnana) is impermanent.

 

That which is impermanent

is subject to dukkha.

Anicca, dukkha, and anatta are the "three universal marks" of all things. "Conditions" (sankhara) is an all-inclusive term for conditions one might perceive in the world (including emotional and mental conditions), with an emphasis on the fact that they are "conditional," dependent on other conditions. The passages that follow explain the connection between impermanence, dukkha, and "not-self".

 

This passage names "the five khandas," also called "the five groups" (body, feeling, perception, mental conditions, and consciousness) that function in very many passages as an exhaustive grouping of all things perceptible. ("Body" (rupa) includes one’s own body as well as external material things. "Consciousness" refers to consciousness of something, consciousness-of-objects.) This emphasis on internal objects reflects the introspective preoccupation of Buddhist meditators, and is unfortunate for modern interpretations concerned with the application of Buddhist teaching to everyday life.

 

 

 

 

Dukkha refers to the frustration and anxiety that occurs when person becomes deeply dependent on anything (any "form"), and comes to expect that thing to be permanently reliable. Impermanence means that nothing is permanently reliable, and so everything is a potential cause of dukkha.

Of that which is impermanent

and subject to suffering and change,

one cannot rightly say

‘This belongs to me;

this am I; this is Self. (atta)’

 

Therefore, whatever there be

of body, feeling, perception,

mental formations or consciousness,

whether one’s own or external,

whether gross or subtle,

lofty or low, far or near,

one should understand

according to reality and true wisdom:

This does not belong to me;

this am I not; this is not-Self (anatta).

 

Buddhists use the term "Self" (atta) in a very special sense. To call something "Self" is to treat it as a condition one is completely identified with, "essential to me," "of crucial importance to me," in such a way that any threat to this condition penetrates deeply into me, is felt as a deep threat to me. On an emotional level, unenlightened persons feel many conditions, external and internal, as "essential to me" in this sense. I think atta is better translated, not as "Self" but as "essential to me," as in "my job is essential to me," or "my good-looking body is essential to me."

Buddhism assumes that becoming deeply invested in something as essential-to-me necessarily involves an expectation of permanence. If one fully realized that something was impermanent, subject to changes beyond one’s control, one would not become so emotionally identified with it and deeply dependent on it. Becoming deeply dependent on something requires temporarily hiding from oneself the truth of its impermanence. Enlightenment consists in no longer feeling this way. The enlightened person feels that no particular condition in the world is essential-to-me in this sense.

Suppose, a man who can see,

were to behold the many bubbles 

on the Ganges river

as they are moving along.

And he should watch them 

and carefully examine them.

After carefully examining them,

they will appear to him as empty, 

unreal, and insubstantial.

 

In exactly the same way does the monk observe

all bodies, feelings, perceptions, mental conditions, and consciousness-of-objects

whether they be of the past, 

or the present, or the future, far or near.

And he watches them 

and examines them carefully,

and, after carefully examining them, 

they appear to him as empty, void and anatta.

In exactly the same way does the monk observe

all bodies, feelings, perceptions, mental conditions, and consciousness-of-objects

whether they be of the past, or the present, 

or the future, far or near.

And he watches them 

and examines them carefully,

and, after carefully examining them, 

they appear to him as empty, void and anatta.

This passage illustrates well the peculiar sense of the terms "empty," and "unreal" in Buddhist writings. The bubbles that appear and disappear on a river surface are fully "real" in our sense of the word, but the point is that they lack solid substance and permanence. Conditions are "empty," "insubstantial" in the Buddhist sense, if they lack real power to permanently fulfill the expectations we place on them, and this is the sense in which they are "unreal."

B2 Taking up and laying down the burden.

( From the Samyutta-Nikaya 22.22, quoted in Warren p. 160.)

 

I will teach you about the burden,

the taking up of the burden,

and the laying down of the burden.

 

What is the burden?

It is the five grasping groups (khandas)

the form grasping-group

the sensation grasping group

the perception grasping group

the mental formations grasping group

the consciousness grasping group

These are called the burden.

 

Who is the bearer of the burden?

It is the individual --

so-and-so of such-and-such a family.

He is called the bearer of the burden.

 

What is the taking up of the burden?

It is craving leading to rebirth, joining itself to pleasure and passion,

and finding delight in every existence,

craving, namely, for sensual pleasure,

craving for permanent existence, craving for transitory existence

This is called the taking up of the burden.

 

What is the laying down of the burden?

It is the complete absence of passion,

the cessation, giving up, relinquishment,

forsaking, and non-adoption of craving.

This is called the laying down of the burden.

 

The five groups form the heavy load,

And man bears this heavy load.

It is misery to take up this load,

 

Laying it down is bliss.

 

He who lays down this heavy load

And takes up no other

By extirpating all craving

Shall lose hunger, gain Nirvana.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The five khandas are called "grasping groups" (upadana-khanda) because they constitute all the things one might grasp at, things that might be an object of Tanha.

 

Note that Buddhist writing assumes that personal individuals exist. The denial of "Self" does not deny this, but only says that there is no particular perceptible part or condition of one’s personal being that is beyond change and so fit to be identified with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keep in mind that "passion" and "craving" do not refer to everything designated by these words in English.

2.3 Craving

(From the Majjhima-Nikaya 38 and the Samyutta Nikaya 12, quoted in Goddard p. 29 and 31.)

 

When perceiving a visible form,

a sound, odor, taste, bodily contact, or an idea in the mind,

if the object is pleasant, one is attracted,

and if unpleasant, one is repelled.

Thus, whatever kind of feeling one experiences,

pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent,

one approves of the feeling and clings to it.

 

 

 

While doing so, craving springs up;

craving for feelings means clinging to existence;

on clinging to existence 

depends the process of becoming;

on the process of becoming depends future birth;

on birth depends decay and death,

sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair

Thus arises this whole mass of dukkha.

This is the noble truth of the origin of dukkha.

 

Through the total fading away 

and extinction of craving (tanha)

clinging (upadana) to existence is extinguished;

through the extinction of the clinging to existence

the process of becoming (bhava) is extinguished;

through the extinction of the process of becoming

rebirth (jati) is extinguished;

and through the extinction of rebirth

decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, 

suffering, grief and despair are extinguished.

Thus comes about the extinction 

of this mass of dukkha.

Identification with one’s feelings is said to spring from fear of not "existing" in the world. I take this to mean that we are all afraid of being unconnected to something tangible -- of being completely alone in this sense. Buddhist teachings express this same point mythologically in terms of reincarnation: This fear of disconnection is what at death brings the person back into another tangible world. Clinging to particular connections to tangible but changeable things subjects one to dukkha in this world, and will also continue to subject one to dukkha in future worlds, until one gets free of all tanha and upadana. This is Nirvana.

B4. Anatta (1)

(Quoted and arranged in Goddard p. 38-39 from the Anguttara Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, and Sutta Nipata.)

 

Whether Perfect Ones [Buddhas] 

appear in the world,

or whether Perfect Ones 

do not appear in the world,

it still remains a firm condition,

an immutable fact and fixed law:

that all conditions are impermanent;

that all conditions are subject to dukkha;

that everything is anatta.

 

A material body, a feeling, a perception,

a mental condition, a consciousness,

that is permanent and persistent,

eternal and not subject to change…

there is no such thing. (Anguttara Nikaya 3.134)

 

It is impossible that a being

possessed of Right Understanding

should regard anything as atta.

(Anguttara Nikaya 1.15)

 

Now, suppose someone should say

that feeling is atta

There are three kinds of feeling:

pleasurable, painful, and indifferent feeling.

Which of these three feelings… [are] atta?

These three kinds of feeling are impermanent,

of dependent origin,

are subject to decay and dissolution,

to fading away and extinction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note the assumption underlying this passage. A person who thinks that feeling is atta must be mistaken, because to do so would be to admit that atta can be dissolved, mixed up with pleasure and pain, subject to rising and passing away. According to assumptions common to Buddhists and their Hindu opponents, this is contrary to the definition of atta.

Whoever, in experiencing one of these feelings,

thinks that this is atta,

will, after the extinction of that feeling,

[have to] admit that atta has become dissolved.

And thus he will consider atta

already in his present life as impermanent,

mixed up with pleasure and pain,

subject to rising and passing away.

 

Suppose feeling should become altogether 

totally extinguished;

now, if there, after the extinction of feeling,

no feeling whatever exists, 

is it then possible to say:

This am I? (Digha Nikaya 15.)

 

It would be better…

to regard this body… as atta

rather than the mind.

For it is evident that this body may last for a year,

for two years… ten years,

or even for a hundred years and more;

but that which is called thought,

or mind, or mind-consciousness,

is continuously, during day and night,

arising as one thing 

and passing away as another thing.

(Samyutta Nikaya 21.7)

 

Therefore, whatsoever there is of body, of feeling,

of perception, of mental conditions, 

of consciousness,

whether one’s own or external, gross or subtle,

lofty or low, far or near:

there one should understand

according to reality and true wisdom:

This does not belong to me; this I am not; 

this is anatta.

 

B5 Anatta (2)

Samyutta Nikaya 4, quoted in Conze.

 

To what extent is the world called "empty"?

Because it is empty of atta  

or of what belongs to atta,

it is therefore said: "The world is empty."

And what is empty of atta  

and what belongs to atta?

The eye, material shapes, visual consciousness,

impressions of the eye—

all these are empty of atta  

and of what belongs to atta.

So too are ear, nose, tongue, body and mind

(and their appropriate sense objects)

consciousness (and its mental objects)

they are all empty of atta and what belongs to atta.

 

This is why the world called empty

because it is empty of atta  

and what belongs to atta.

 

B7 Noble and Ignoble Craving.

From the Majjhima-Nikaya 26, quoted in Warren p. 333.

 

There are two cravings,

the noble one, and the ignoble one.

 

And what is the ignoble craving?

[think of] the case of one who, himself subject to birth,

craves what is subject to birth;

himself subject to old age, craves what subject to old age;

himself subject to disease… death… sorrow… decay,

craves what is subject to decay.

 

And what is subject to birth…

to old age… disease… death, sorrow, decay?

A wife and child are subject to birth…

to old age… disease… death… sorrow… decay

goats and sheep… chicken and pigs…

cattle and horses, gold and silver are subject to birth…

to old age… disease… death… sorrow… decay

 

 

All the substrata of being are subject to birth;

and enveloped and immersed in them,

this person, himself subject to birth, craves what is subject to birth.

 

This is the ignoble craving.

 

And what is the noble craving?

[think of] the case of one who,

himself subject to birth,

perceives the distress of what is subject to birth,

and craves the incomparable security of a Nirvana,

free from birth;

himself subject to old age… disease…

death… sorrow… decay,

perceives the distress of what is subject to decay,

and craves the incomparable security

of a Nirvana free from corruption.

 

This is the noble craving.

If we take this claim seriously, it means that the Buddhist aim is not just freedom from the discomfort of dukkha – there is nothing particularly noble about wanting to be free of discomfort. This and other passages suggest that letting oneself in for disappointment is also a kind of self-betrayal — "ignoble" because in doing so a person forfeits her native freedom and subjects herself to something less than she is, relying on something unreliable rather than finding and incurable security her own potentially unlimited capacities.

2.10 The dependent origination (1). The arising of object-consciousness

 

Majjhima Nikaya 38 and 28. Quoted and arranged in Goddard p. 28.

The arising of consciousness is dependent upon conditions,

and without these conditions no consciousness arises.

Upon whatever conditions the arising of consciousness is dependent, after these it is called.

 

Consciousness, whose arising depends on the eye and forms,

is called eye-consciousness

Consciousness, whose arising depends on the ear and sounds,

is called ear-consciousness.

Consciousness, whose arising depends on the organ of smell and odors,

is called smell-consciousness.

Consciousness, whose arising depends on the tongue and taste,

is called tongue-consciousness.

Consciousness, whose arising depends on the body and bodily contacts,

is called body-consciousness.

Consciousness, whose arising depends on the mind and ideas,

is called mind-consciousness.

 

Whatever there is of body (rupa) in the consciousness thus arisen,

that belongs to the body-group (rupa-khanda) connected with clinging to existence.

Whatever there is of feeling in it,

that belongs to the feeling-group connected with clinging to existence.

Whatever there is of perception in it,

that belongs to the perception-group connected with clinging to existence.

Whatever there are of mental conditions in it,

that belongs to the mental-conditions-group connected with clinging to existence.

Whatever there is of consciousness in it,

that belongs to the consciousness-group connected with clinging to existence.

This passage is important for an understanding of Buddhist psychological theory. It illustrates one use of the term "consciousness" in Buddhism to refer to consciousness of particular objects. Its basic point is that no states of mind involving consciousness of an object (even subtle mental objects like feelings and ideas) have a being that is self-subsistent and therefore permanent, but arise dependently on objects that are themselves impermanent. This is what Buddhists mean by "conditioned" consciousness.

Note that the passage after this one characterizes this object-consciousness as consciousness that "abides in" (identifies with) objects, in contrast to another use of the term "consciousness" to refer to consciousness that does not abide in any object. This is consciousness that has not "arisen," and has not "been born," or "come into an existence" connected with the world of objects, but remains in the realm of ""the unborn and unconditioned."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Passing out of one existence and entering into a new existence" seems to refer mainly to the experience of having one object-consciousness pass away (with the fading of its object), and "arising" again in "a new existence" when contact with another object causes object-consciousness to come into existence again.

B12 Dependent Origination (2)

Samyutta Nikaya 2.84, quoted in Thomas p. 62

 

In one who abides

surveying the enjoyment in things that make for grasping

craving increases.

 

Grasping is caused by craving,

coming into existence by grasping,

birth by coming into existence;

and old age and death by birth…

 

Just as if a great mass of fire were burning

of ten, twenty, thirty, or forty loads of firewood,

and a man from time to time were to throw on it dry grasses,

dry cow-dung, and dry firewood;

even so a great mass of fire

with that feeding and that fuel would burn for a long time. .

 

In one who abides surveying the unhappiness

in things that stimulate grasping,

craving ceases.

 

This passage uses "consciousness" in two senses. One is an activated consciousness-of-objects, due to craving for objects, abiding in objects, finding support in objects. This is an impermanent consciousness, which one wants to get free of. But "consciousness" also describes an "unarisen" consciousness, not seeking, abiding in, or finding support in, any changeable objects. This is an "unborn" consciousness, a consciousness in the state of Nibbana.

 

Further texts on the relation of morality and enlightenment