The Sankhata and Asankhata element

I feel Buddha taught that we have to see for ourselves what mind is while purifying our hearts and becoming progressively still and empty. I do not think we must rely on words, definitions in books, sutta’s to find out what mind is.

I think i see:

Mind has a deep aspect or element of non-movement, emptiness, like space, open. It cannot be grasped, like air or space. This empty nature is never seen arising and ceasing. Also not when one is unconscious. One cannot say it is absent in deep sleep and arises while awake. Never. It is never seen arising and ceasing and changing.

Next to this element or aspect of the mind that cannot be seen arising, ceasing and changing, there is also the element of what can be seen arising, ceasing and changing: for example, greed, hate, feelings, sense-sensations, tactile sensations etc. This is minds aspect of movement, formations arising, waves, not deep, on the surface, khandha’s.

I tend to believe that when the mind progressively stills, this element of non-movement, of emptiness, reveals itself more and more. It is never absent but the ‘noise’ of formations can make it seem absent.

So, i believe Buddha taught both aspect or elements, sankhata and asankhata. The last cannot be seen arising, ceasing and changing.

When the Buddha talkes about the Tathagata as being deep, unfathomable, maybe he talks about this deep nature of the mind. It is not seperate from the waves. The waves or khandha’s are just the natural expression of minds activity, like radiance is the natural expression of the activity of the sun. There is not really a difference between sun and this radiance.

When the Buddha talkes about being detached from the khandha’s, free from birth, free from death, aging, maybe refers to this deep aspect of the mind. Does this emptiness age?

I like the simile of the ocean for what mind is. With its deep stilled depth and also its waves on the surface, its movement.

I think it can be said that both aspects are part of our lifes.

1 Like

Namo Buddhaya!

There is a succession

When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates (lit: “weighs,” “compares”). Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment. Canki Sutta: With Canki

If one has placed conviction in the wrong person or has not understood the communicable doctrine, then one’s efforts will be futile at best and harmful at worst.

I accept that but it is not easy to see who are those with right understanding. There are so many teachers, with so many different ideas and interpretations. Even in one Sangha, let alone, the Sangha’s all over the world. It is a huge thicket of views, ideas, a real swamp.

It seems there is nothing that can decide who are those wise people. Not even behaviour, speech, special abilites can decide it. It seems we are totally left to our own judgements. To our own hearts.
We are unenviable. But maybe there is no other way to grow up, become a true person, a noble, wise, loving.

We all know we are sick. We are sick with the desire to get a grasp on Dhamma by reasoning, thinking, logic, analytic mind. We know this but we are addicted.

Do you also feel, like many, i am totally lost?

1 Like

It’s not easy but still they do it.

How do you know that anyone nowadays understands the dhamma at all?
This is not a given, at some point there will be nobody like this and someone will also be the last human in a given dispensation to grasp it correctly.

Why not renounce the world and go attain what can be attained with manly effort & renunciation? Assume the worst and go be the one who breaks thtough when people have long given up.

One thing that can be a measure of true wisdom is that the wise can understand the confused people but explain as much as he want they will not understand his perspective.

No i don’t feel like this in the slightest.

I used to believe that maybe there was no afterlife, that maybe there was no good & evil, that maybe conscience was cultural baggage, that maybe there is no difference between killing one’s mother and killing an ant, that maybe we were all just meat & bones. I wasn’t sure if this was correct but i wanted to act on this view and so i had to become sure before i went full evil.

So i studied all things relevant thinking that i’d disprove the afterlife and do whatever i want.

But the more i studied the more i proved the contrary, everything pointed to an afterlife and the evidence was overwhelming. I kept studying and eventually i started to study buddhism because i figured that meditation is the only way to settle this controversy in a definitive sense.

In no long time i learned the doctrine, exerted myself in meditation, satisfied my curiousity and got rid of doubt.

One is fortunate to still have the texts. If one can learn the basic pali then one can just learn the suttas and it will be about as good as learning the dhamma from a real ariyan.

The meaning of the various statements is also explained in the texts.

Therefore the door to learning the dhamma, remembering, penetrating the meaning and pondering the meaning is open and we don’t really need to choose a teacher to do these things.

Another aspect of the true teaching is that anyone who correctly grasps it won’t ever fall away from it.

Therefore if someone says ‘i understand the dhamma in this certain way’ and if other people learn it from him such that they understand exactly how he thinks about it, then they wouldn’t reject it if it’s correct.

If the teaching is false then it is possible that they would reject it, they might not reject it if it is false but it is not possible that they would reject it if it is correctly taught.

One might reject the true teaching only if it is not correctly understood by the one who rejects it.

This actually rules out quite a lot of doctrines.

1 Like