On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?
"Now suppose that in the autumn — when it's raining in fat, heavy drops — a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water bubble? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any feeling that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in feeling?
"Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?
"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:
Commentary by Glen Wallis in "Basic Teachings of the Buddha":
Practicing the Sabba Sutta, "The All," we become adept at recognizing the way perception unfolds. We start to see clearly the interrelationship of what we had erroneously taken to be purely separate events. My eyes, the act of seeing, and the forms that I see; my ears, the act of hearing, and the sounds that I hear; my nose, smelling, and scents, and so forth, suddenly appear to be a single fluid event. Where does one aspect end and the other begin? One consequence of internalizing the Sabba Sutta is that we begin to feel at home within our sensorium. We realize that this sensory field is where we have already been all along: right here. Where else could we ever be? Now, from within this perspective, we have what the Buddha calls "good vision," and so can "reflect on" and "carefully examine" those appearances. What do we see about the nature of all that arises? Of course, I don't need to tell you. Just look! Listen! Smell! Feel! Taste! Think! This kind of looking is called "direct seeing" or "Careful examination."
In the present sutta, the Buddha is sitting with some of his followers on the banks of the Ganges River. Seeing a ball of foam floating up onto the riverbank, he reflects that, contrary to immediate appearances, all forms are fundamentally no different from this ball of foam. What is the nature of this ball of foam? It is, on closer examination, discovered to be "empty, hollow, and insubstantial." And all other foams -- what is their nature? When considered more carefully than our rapid everyday perception allows -- we might, for instance, require a powerful microscope -- they, too, are "empty, hollow, and insubstantial." The Buddha's insight on seeing the ball of foam inspires him to make four further such similies: feeling is like a water bubble; perception is like a shimmering mirage; conceptual fabrications are like a woodless core; cognizance is like a magical illusion.
It is important to note that the Buddha is not denying the reality of each of these processes. He is merely clarifying the nature of their realness. In our everyday speech, don't we use "real" to indicate qualities of absoluteness, continuity, solidity, fixedness, and so forth? That sensation you feel on touching a hot cup of coffee is a real, felt sensation. There is no denying the fact. But in what sense is it real? The Buddha's examples seem intentionally to run counter to our common assumptions about the nature of "Real." Like a water bubble, a feeling of "hot" arises when the necessary conditions are present; persists as long as these conditions hold together; dissolves as those conditions weaken; and disappears as they disintegrate. Why is this insight important? You can do an experiment. Practice viewing appearances, perceptions, feelings, conceptualizations, and thoughts in the manner recommended by the Buddha here. Is your habitual way of reacting altered at all? What qualities of being become present when you see forms as balls of foams and thoughts as magical illusions? When you view reality in this manner, what then?
The Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (Pali, "Not-Self Characteristic Discourse"), also known as the Pañcavaggiya Sutta (Pali, "Group of Five [Ascetics]"), is the second discourse delivered by the Buddha.[1] In this discourse, the Buddha analyzes the constituents of a person's body and mind (khandha) and demonstrates that they are each impermanent (anicca), subject to suffering (dukkha) and thus unfit for identification with a "self" (atta).
In the Pali Canon, the Anattalakkhana Sutta is found in the Samyutta Nikaya ("Connected Collection," abbreviated as either "SN" or "S") and is designated by either "SN 22.59"[2] or "S iii 66".[3] This discourse is also found in the Buddhist monastic code (Vinaya).[4]
----------------------------------------
Thus it was heard by me. At one time the Blessed One was living in the deer park of Isipatana near Benares. There, indeed, the Blessed One addressed the group of five monks.
"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'
"Feeling, O monks, is not-self; if feeling were self, then feeling would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since feeling is not-self, therefore feeling leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus.'
"Perception, O monks, is not-self; if perception were self, then perception would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding perception: 'May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since perception is not-self, therefore, perception leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding perception: 'May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus.'
"Mental formations, O monks, are not-self; if mental formations were self, then mental formations would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding mental formations: 'May my perception be thus, may my mental formations not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since mental formations are not-self, therefore, mental formations lead to affliction and it does not obtain regarding mental formations: 'May my mental formations be thus, may my mental formations not be thus.'
"Consciousness, O monks, is not-self; if consciousness were self, then consciousness would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since consciousness is not-self, therefore, consciousness leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus.'
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, those that are impermanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever feeling, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that feeling must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever perception, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that perception must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever mental formations, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all those mental formations must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'These are not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"
This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment.
Indeed, at that time there were six arahants in the world.
Commentary by Glen Wallis in "Basic Teachings of the Buddha":
In the previous suttas, the Buddha tells us that in order to resolve our persistent lack of ease, it is crucial that we come to know for ourselves the nature of reality. The means of this direct, extradoctrinal, extra-authoritarian knowledge, he further tells us, is immediately available: knowing requires that we learn to attend to the sensorium, to the sense doors -- the modes of immediate, moment-to-moment presence. Once we turn our attention to the sensorium and become accustomed to attending to matters as they unfold right there, the Buddha asks us to push our insight even deeper. He asks us to observe that the reality given through these modes of perception is analogous to a mirage, magical illusion, or woodless core. As we become accustomed to seeing in this manner, it dawns on us that the khandhas, the apparent constituents that make up our (apparent) personalities, are engaged in a dance with shifting, changing, indeterminate, phantomlike entities. It might be that, with this insight, the practitioner now has a sense of attainment, a sense of having finally resolved the important matter of understanding the nature of reality. There is a sense that "I" have understood, that "I" know. This sense of accomplishment gives rise to a feeling of stability, as if there were a firm, fixed position from which "I" look out at the world, seeing that it is really like a dream. Seeing this condition of reality, "I" nonetheless feel constant and real and not at all dreamlike.
It is precisely at this phase of clarity that the Buddha pushes us to deepen our insight. In the present sutta, he is speaking to the "group of five mendicants." These five men are mentioned in the introduction as the group of mendicants who had practiced with the Buddha early on in his quest but had eventually abandoned him as a backslider. We might imagine, then, that these five men had realized the ephemeral nature of reality. Nonetheless, the Buddha finds it necessary to point out to them something more: there is no self, no actual "I," behind or within this process of realizing, knowing, or simply being. So the fact that the Buddha is speaking this sutta to advanced practitioners may be seen as indicative of the deeply counterintuitive idea of no-self. Our being in the world -- our very way of experiencing, thinking, and speaking -- wants to reject such a notion as simply absurd or simply wrong, doesn't it? If nothing else, no-self certainly runs counter to our normal way of thinking and being. As an experiment, just try to speak without pronouns, or think and experience for a few moments devoid of a persistent underlying sense of "I, me, or mine" doing the experiencing.
By observing in turn what which we call "experience," "thinking," and "language," we may also gain a vantage point for understanding the Buddha's counterintuitive teaching of no-self. When you carefully examine your actual experience, thinking, and language, isn't each instance run through with the kind of shifting indeterminacy best described as "miragelike"? Just take a look. If "miragelike" is the case, then what sort of "self," not to mention idea or definition of "self," can be preserved in light of this insight? It would be useful to reflect at this point on what it is precisely that you are calling "self." The Buddha presumes his interlocutors hold a notion of self that is by definition self-contained, undivided, integral, individual. As such, the self would be a powerful controlling agent. Is that the case? Again, just look at your immediate experience. If what we call "the self" is not the driving force behind experience, if it is not an agent (from the Greek, agein, "to drive"), then what is it that we are referring to with the term "Self"? Is anyone there?