Aniccaṃ = Impermanent

@srkris

We find in SN20.7

In the same way, in a future time there will be mendicants who won’t want to listen when discourses spoken by the Realized One—deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness—are being recited. They won’t actively listen or try to understand, nor will they think those teachings are worth learning and memorizing.

Evameva kho, bhikkhave, bhavissanti bhikkhū anāgatamaddhānaṁ, ye te suttantā tathāgatabhāsitā gambhīrā gambhīratthā lokuttarā suññatappaṭisaṁyuttā, tesu bhaññamānesu na sussūsissanti na sotaṁ odahissanti na aññā cittaṁ upaṭṭhāpessanti na ca te dhamme uggahetabbaṁ pariyāpuṇitabbaṁ maññissanti

What are your thoughts on ‘suññatā’ that is spoken of above ?

suññatappaṭisaṁyuttā in the paragraph you’ve quoted is a visesana of suttantā , the samāsa is a tatiyā-tappurisa so the viggahavākya is suññatāya paṭisaṁyuttā (meaning the suttantā dealing with the topic of “suññatā”).

suññatā is to be understood as a taddhita derivative of the word sūñña with the feminine -tā suffix (and gives the meaning suññassa bhāvo “emptiness, i.e. the nature of being empty” if suñña is translated as ‘empty’), and being an adjective, suññatā can be applied in two different senses. At the level of saṃsāra, suññatā works in a relative sense signifying abhāva (absence) of that which is not present while not signifying the abhāva of that which is cognized as being present. As one gradually keeps reflecting on the concept of suññatā starting from the microcosm (the objects of one’s immediate sense-contacts) to the macrocosm, one ultimately reaches a final state where one realizes paramānuttarā suññatā (i.e. supreme/ultimate and utter emptiness) - that realization of complete and utter emptiness is nibbāna (which in my inference - as the buddha maintained his noble silence about it - is the state of the attā, as there is no residual anattā left at that point).

In the treatise on emptiness in Patisambhidamagga Nibbana is also called ultimate emptiness.
And it is also says that anattanupassana is not different in meaning from sunnatanupassana.

Anicca, dukkha anatta are taught as gateways to liberation. It is explained that persons differ naturally in abilities.

Some have great wisdom abilities and those person naturally tend to anattanupassana, and they take the emptiness gateway to liberation.The mind enters into emptiness.

Others focus more naturally on dukkha, and they take the desireless gateway ot liberation. Dukkha nupassana is connected to those with relative strong concentration ability. The mind enters into the desireless.

Anicca nupassana is connected to the signless gateway to liberartion. The sign of permanence disappears. The mind now enters the signless. Anicca nupassana is connected to those who have a strong Faith faculty.

It does not matter what gateway one naturally takes because, emptiness, desireless, signless that is where one arrives at and are all synonyms for an awareness without any clinging, Nibbana.

Emptiness in the Sutta Pitaka (as a whole) is treated in the following contexts:

  • as the absence of a core or essence in things
  • as an expression that the eye, visual, eye vinnana…and other sense domains are empty of a self or anything belonging to a self
  • all composed things are empty
  • all khandha’s are empty
  • sunnata nupassana is anattanupassana
  • sunnata nupassana as 1 of 18 fundamental contemplations
  • emptiness as gateway to liberation
  • emptiness liberation
  • emptiness concentration
  • emptiness contact
  • emptiness as vihara, or abiding in emptiness
  • final meaning of emptiness
  • internal and external emptiness
  • ultimate emptiness

Much of this is in Patisambhidamagga, Treatise on Emptiness.
The things i have made bold are also in what is regarded as EBT

We find for example statements like

‘viññāṇavantaṃ attānaṃ samanupassati’

What do think is spoken of above?

This is from the Paṭisambhidāmagga (attānudiṭṭhiniddeso). It means a view where someone views attā as having viññāna. Views like these are held by puthujjanā (according to the text).

Today I found this article on this topic that states:

In Cambodia, the country which has the longest unbroken “oral only”
-tradition, anicca is translated as min-deang or *min-dang (khmer),
which means, not-knowable, not to see, not controllable, not in the
sphere of control or foreseeable.

According to the article, “not controllable” is another way of saying “not according to one’s wishes”.

Today I was reading MN35, which had this term as well, and there are two observations that are worth mentioning:

  1. In this text Assaji states contrary to the following position:

Aggivessana, this is how the ascetic Gotama guides his disciples, and his instructions to disciples generally proceed on these topics: ‘Form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are aniccā. Form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are not-self. All conditions are aniccā. All things are not-self.’ This is how the ascetic Gotama guides his disciples, and how instruction to his disciples generally proceeds.

“Aggivessana, are you not saying this: ‘Form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, choices are my self, consciousness is my self’?”

The first observation is in the question asked by Buddha: he is asking Assaji if he has power over form to make it according to his wishes. If the translation of anicca would be “not according to one’s wishes”, it would be a natural question to ask.

“What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, ‘Form is my self,’ do you have power over that form to say: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that’?”

“No, Mister Gotama.”

Or if it is a coincidence, then it is also stated after he answers ‘No’, that what he said before and after does not match up. How does it not match up?

“Think about it, Aggivessana! You should think before answering. What you said before and what you said after don’t match up.

  1. The second observation is part of the text, that if translated as impermanent also contains word perishable which seem to be synonyms meaning the same thing?

“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”

See for example SN22.99

Yes there too it has the same meaning. Puthujjanas consider what is impermanent (rupa, vedanā, saññā,saṅkhārā and viññāna) to be attā. That is a wrong view, as per the Buddha.

No, that would be “viññāṇaṁ attato samanupassati” etc.

OK, sure, it’s however the same type of thinking - let’s analyze the phrase ‘viññāṇavantaṃ attānaṃ samanupassati’ below.

Here, viññāṇavantaṃ is masc. accusative singular of viññānavant, and is an adjective qualifying the subtstantive word attānaṃ (masc. accusative singular of attā). samanupassati is the verb, meaning “to consider”, “to regard”, “to perceive” etc.

viññānavant means “possessing or characterized by viññāna”.

So the sentence literally means “one considers the attā as being possessed of (or characterized by) viññāna.”


Now how does this meaning tie in with what I said in my earlier post – i.e. that Puthujjanas consider what is impermanent (rupa, vedanā, saññā,saṅkhārā and viññāna) to be attā ?

According to the Buddha, the khandhas (rupa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā and viññāna) are an-attā. In other words viññāna is anattā.

But a puthujjana considers what is described as anattā by the Buddha (i.e. viññāna) to be attā. In other words they consider the attā (which isn’t anicca) to be characterized by viññāna (which is anicca). To that extent, they have a wrong view.

No, there is an immediately apparent difference between “viññāṇaṁ attato samanupassati” and the last three “viññāṇavantaṁ vā attānaṁ; attani vā viññāṇaṁ, viññāṇasmiṁ vā attānaṁ(samanupassati)”.

I’m curious as to what evidence he might have for this claim, for as far as I know there are no grounds for thinking that any SE Asian Theravada culture ever maintained a wholly oral transmission of the teachings. But even if the writer’s claim about Cambodia were true, it wouldn’t put the Cambodians in any better position than anyone else to accurately translate Pali words.

Concerning “min-deang”, the consonant ទ in មិនទៀង is an unvoiced unaspirated dental, so the transliteration should be min tieng. It’s true that this is how anicca is rendered in the Cambodian translation of the Tipitaka, but it doesn’t mean “not knowable” or any of the other things the writer claims it means.

Here’s the entry for tieng in Headley’s Khmer-English Dictionary:

  1. ទៀង ( adj ) [tieŋ]
    to be accurate, correct, exact, precise, certain, honest, sure.
    Eg. នាឡិកានេះ​ដើរទៀងណាស់: This watch is very accurate.

  2. ទៀង ( n ) [tieŋ]
    Nirvana

The tieng part of min tieng is actually cognate with the Thai adjective thîeng (เที่ยง), which is the standard Thai translation of nicca. In both languages, in a Dhamma context the meaning is “stable” or “sure”. Hence, when negated, “unstable”.

Yaṃ pan’āniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā’ti?
(Anattalakkhanasutta)

ទ្រង់​ត្រាស់​សួរ​ថា​ ​របស់​ណា​មិន​ទៀង​ ​របស់​នោះ​ជា​ទុក្ខ​ឬ​ជា​សុខ​។
"He asked: If something is unstable is it dukkha or sukha?
Online Khmer Tipitaka

ก็สิ่งใดไม่เที่ยง สิ่งนั้นเป็นทุกข์หรือเป็นสุขเล่า?
"So then, something which is unstable, is that thing dukkha or sukha?
Online Thai Tipitaka

I think you can read it in the Anattalakkhaṇasutta (this is the second sutta preached by the Buddha after the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta Sutta). As I remember, this is where the word annicam first appeared and was recorded in the tipitaka, after Gotama attained Buddhahood, and preached his teaching. Here it is also explained about niccam and annicam, as Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Bodhi also translated annicam as impermanent and niccam as permanent.

What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”

“Suffering, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”

“No, sir.”

“Is feeling permanent or impermanent?” …

“Is perception permanent or impermanent?” …

“Are choices permanent or impermanent?” …

“Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”

“Suffering, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”

“No, sir.”

“So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Any kind of feeling at all …

Any kind of perception at all …

Any kind of choices at all …

You should truly see any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.

They understand: ‘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.’”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the group of five mendicants approved what the Buddha said. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the group of five mendicants were freed from defilements by not grasping.

Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?

“Aniccaṁ, bhante”.

“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti?

“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”.

“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?

“No hetaṁ, bhante”.

“Vedanā …

saññā …

saṅkhārā …

viññāṇaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?

“Aniccaṁ, bhante”.

“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti?

“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”.

“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?

“No hetaṁ, bhante”.

“Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṁ kiñci rūpaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā yaṁ dūre santike vā, sabbaṁ rūpaṁ: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.

Yā kāci vedanā atītānāgatapaccuppannā ajjhattā vā bahiddhā vā …pe… yā dūre santike vā, sabbā vedanā: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.

Yā kāci saññā …pe…

ye keci saṅkhārā atītānāgatapaccuppannā ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā …pe… ye dūre santike vā, sabbe saṅkhārā: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.

Yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā yaṁ dūre santike vā, sabbaṁ viññāṇaṁ: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.

Evaṁ passaṁ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmimpi nibbindati, vedanāyapi nibbindati, saññāyapi nibbindati, saṅkhāresupi nibbindati, viññāṇasmimpi nibbindati. Nibbindaṁ virajjati; virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṁ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti.

‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānātī”ti.

Idamavoca bhagavā. Attamanā pañcavaggiyā bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinanduṁ. Variant: abhinanduṁ → abhinandunti (mr)Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṁ bhaññamāne pañcavaggiyānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ anupādāya āsavehi cittāni vimucciṁsūti.

I said they are the same type of thinking, not that they are the same sentence (or that they mean exactly the same in a literal sense).

viññāṇaṁ attato samanupassati = viññāna is considered to be the attā
viññāṇavantaṁ vā attānaṁ samanupassati = attā is considered to be characterized by (or endowed with) viññāna
attani vā viññāṇaṁ samanupassati = viññāna is considered as being within the attā
viññāṇasmiṁ vā attānaṁ samanupassati = attā is considered as being within viññāna

The Buddha doesnt agree with any of the four - as viññāna (being anicca) can’t be identified with or related to attā (which isn’t anicca) in any of the above 4 ways.

In any case, I don’t see what exactly is the difference you are talking about and why you consider it significant.

We can get in to that.But first , you are assuming this is talking about ordinary person on the streets assumptions about atta. Are you willing to consider the possibility that this includes yogis that think they experientially know what they are talking about when it comes to atta? This was not a time of a fall as Sanatanavadins think but extraordinary times when they were truly exploring the human possibility, where knowledge extended even up to Nevasannanasannayatana.

PS: on second thought, I respectfully retire from this conversation. It’s taking too much of my time.

1. Impermanence of the Great Ocean

hoti kho so, āvuso, samayo, yaṃ mahāsamudde aṅgulipabbatemanamattampi udakaṃ na hoti. tassā hi nāma, āvuso, bāhirāya āpodhātuyā tāva mahallikāya aniccatā paññāyissati, khayadhammatā paññāyissati, vayadhammatā paññāyissati, vipariṇāmadhammatā paññāyissati. kiṃ panimassa mattaṭṭhakassa kāyassa taṇhupādinnassa ‘ahanti vā mamanti vā asmīti’ vā?

There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean are not enough to wet even the joint of a finger. When even this external water element, great as it is, is seen to be impermanent, subject to destruction, disappearance, and change, what of this body, which is clung to by craving and lasts but a while? There can be no considering that as ‘I’ or ‘mine’ or ‘I am’ (MN 28).

Key Words Applied to the Ocean and Water Element :

  • aniccatā = state of impermanence.
  • khayadhammatā = state of being subject to destruction.
  • vayadhammatā = state of being subject to disappearance.
  • vipariṇāmadhammatā = state of being subject to change.
  • mattaṭṭhaka = lasting but a while (or “short moment”).

2. Perception of Impermanence

kathaṃ bhāvitā ca, bhikkhave, aniccasaññā kathaṃ bahulīkatā sabbaṃ kāmarāgaṃ pariyādiyati . pe . sabbaṃ asmimānaṃ samūhanati? ‘iti rūpaṃ, iti rūpassa samudayo, iti rūpassa atthaṅgamo; iti vedanā. iti saññā. iti saṅkhārā. iti viññāṇaṃ, iti viññāṇassa samudayo, iti viññāṇassa atthaṅgamo’ti — evaṃ bhāvitā kho, bhikkhave, aniccasaññā evaṃ bahulīkatā sabbaṃ kāmarāgaṃ pariyādiyati, sabbaṃ rūparāgaṃ pariyādiyati, sabbaṃ bhavarāgaṃ pariyādiyati, sabbaṃ avijjaṃ pariyādiyati, sabbaṃ asmimānaṃ samūhanatī”ti. dasamaṃ.

And how, bhikkhus, is the perception of impermanence developed and cultivated so that it eliminates all sensual lust, eliminates all lust for existence, eliminates all ignorance, and uproots all conceit ‘I am’? ‘Such is form, such its origin, such its passing away; such is feeling … such is perception … such are volitional formations … such is consciousness, such its origin, such its passing away’: that is how the perception of impermanence is developed and cultivated so that it eliminates all sensual lust, eliminates all lust for existence, eliminates all ignorance, and uproots all conceit ‘I am’ (SN 22.102).

Key Words Applied :

  • samudayo = origin.
  • atthaṅgamo = passing away.

Analysis of the Words Samudayo and Atthaṅgamo

There are several context that demonstrate that atthaṅgamo means “passing away.” The need for this analysis stems from the fact that the meaning of the word atthaṅgamo as “passing away” itself has been questioned (alongside a few other key words). Here’s one from the Majjhimanikāya where both words are linked to udayo (rising) and vayo (disappearance), which becomes udayabbayo:

pañca kho ime, ānanda, upādānakkhandhā yattha bhikkhunā udayabbayānupassinā vihātabbaṃ — ‘iti rūpaṃ iti rūpassa samudayo iti rūpassa atthaṅgamo, iti vedanā… iti saññā… iti saṅkhārā… iti viññāṇaṃ iti viññāṇassa samudayo iti viññāṇassa atthaṅgamo’’ti. tassa imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu udayabbayānupassino viharato yo pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu asmimāno so pahīyati.

Ānanda, there are these five aggregates affected by clinging, in regard to which a bhikkhu should abide contemplating rise and fall thus: ‘Such is material form, such its arising, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its arising, such its disappearance; such is perception, such its arising, such its disappearance; such are formations, such their arising, such their disappearance; such is consciousness, such its arising, such its disappearance’ (MN 122).

Another context in the Saṃyuttanikāya shows again that samudayo and atthaṅgamo refer to “origin” and “passing away” respectively:

“dukkhassa, bhikkhave, samudayañca atthaṅgamañca desessāmi. […] “katamo ca, bhikkhave, dukkhassa samudayo? cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ. tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso. phassapaccayā vedanā; vedanāpaccayā taṇhā. ayaṃ kho, bhikkhave, dukkhassa samudayo. […] katamo ca, bhikkhave, dukkhassa atthaṅgamo? cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ. tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso. phassapaccayā vedanā; vedanāpaccayā taṇhā. tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodhā upādānanirodho; upādānanirodhā bhavanirodho; bhavanirodhā jātinirodho; jātinirodhā jarāmaraṇaṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā nirujjhanti. evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hoti. ayaṃ kho, bhikkhave, dukkhassa atthaṅgamo.

Bhikkhus, I will teach you the origin and the passing away of suffering. […] And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of suffering? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling [comes to be]; with feeling as condition, craving. This is the origin of suffering. […] And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of suffering? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling [comes to be]; with feeling as condition, craving. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving comes cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; with the cessation of existence, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This is the passing away of suffering (SN 12.43).

For samudayo of dukkhaṃ, it says uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ, which means “eye-consciousness arises.” Regarding atthaṅgamo, the words nirodho (cessation) and nirujjhanti (cease) are used. Obviously, how the text understands atthaṅgamo is in the sense of “passing away.”

Another two discourses in the Saṃyuttanikāya follow suit in this understanding, speaking about the elements and the body. The words that are used to describe atthaṅgamo are nirodho (cessation) and vūpasamo (subsiding). When taking up the body (see No. 2 below), it says that āhāro (nutriment) is the cause for the samudayo (origin) of the body, a clear indicator based upon context.

  1. yo ca kho, bhikkhave, pathavīdhātuyā nirodho vūpasamo atthaṅgamo, dukkhasseso nirodho rogānaṃ vūpasamo jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo. – "The cessation, subsiding, and passing away of the earth element … the air element is the cessation of suffering, the subsiding of disease, the passing away of aging-and-death” (SN 14.36).

  2. ko ca, bhikkhave, kāyassa samudayo? āhārasamudayā kāyassa samudayo; āhāranirodhā kāyassa atthaṅgamo. – “And what, bhikkhus, is the origination of the body? With the origination of nutriment there is the origination of the body. With the cessation of nutriment there is the passing away of the body” (SN 47.42).

Further above, we already learned that aniccatā (the state of impermanence) has been described by means of vipariṇāmadhammatā (state of being subject to change). This trend is also followed for atthaṅgamo. Here’s a passage from the Paṭisambhidāmagga:

vipariṇāmalakkhaṇaṃ passatopi saññāya atthaṅgamo vidito hoti – “But for one who sees the characteristic of change, the passing away of perception is evident.”

It also says the following in the context of the causes for the disappearance of samādhi (concentration):

avikkhepatthāya āvajjanāya atthaṅgamo samādhindriyassa atthaṅgamo hoti – “The passing away of the adverting [mind] for the sake of non-distraction is the passing away of the concentration faculty.”

In the light of the totality of the Tipiṭaka passages from above, one can safely include that atthaṅgamo means “passing away,” having been explained in a variety of context and with a multitude of synonyms, but there is more to demonstrate that aniccaṃ has been used by Lord Buddha in the sense of “impermanence.”

3. The Ten Perceptions

To show that aniccaṃ doesn’t mean “not according to wish,” we can turn our attention to a list of ten perceptions. In it, both words aniccaṃ (impermanence) and aniccha (not according to wish) are used. They are not the same, otherwise they wouldn’t be separate items in a list of altogether ten members:

katamā dasa? aniccasaññā, anattasaññā, asubhasaññā, ādīnavasaññā, pahānasaññā, virāgasaññā, nirodhasaññā, sabbaloke anabhiratasaññā, sabbasaṅkhāresu anicchāsaññā, ānāpānassati.

What ten? (1) The perception of impermanence, (2) the perception of non-self, (3) the perception of unattractiveness, (4) the perception of danger, (5) the perception of abandoning, (6) the perception of dispassion, (7) the perception of cessation, (8) the perception of non-delight in the entire world, (9) the perception of non-wish regarding all conditioned phenomena, and (10) mindfulness of breathing (AN 10.60).

In fact, “not attaining according to one’s wish” is part of the description of dukkhaṃ (suffering): yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ – “That which is not getting what one wants is suffering” (DN 22). This Pāḷi sentence is an equational one; that is, it equates the non-attainment of what one wants with suffering itself. In this light, also this famous discourse from the Majjhimanikāya has to be interpreted:

taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, vedanā … pe … saññā… saṅkhārā… viññāṇaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā”ti? “aniccaṃ, bhante”. “yaṃ panāniccaṃ, dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā”ti? “dukkhaṃ, bhante” (MN 22).

“Bhikkhus, what do you think? Is feeling … Is perception … Are formations … Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?” —“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir” (MN 22).

The discourse doesn’t necessarily speak, in this context, about causation. It can, rather, also be seen as an equational sentence. The entirety of that which is aniccaṃ (impermanent) is also dukkhaṃ (suffering).

1 Like

@am7 @Dhammanando

Do you any famous meditation teacher in Cambodia ? Any practice monastery ? Any Cambodian Dhamma YouTube Channel ? Anywhere where we can find reliable Cambodian Dhamma books ?

I do not know as I’m not from Cambodia - only shared the article that refereed to it.