When looking with the eyes given by parents, we see five fingers. But when looking through the lens of knowledge (vijjā), do we see fingers or just visible form-element? We only see visible form-element.
Let's examine again through the body-door. Don't we call them thumb, index finger, middle finger, ring finger, and little finger? Don't we take them as existing?
Now touch with the hand of wisdom given by the Buddha. Do you find fingers or just hardness? When touching the thumb, do you find a thumb or hardness? For each finger - do you find fingers or just hardness?
Can you still find any fingers? If you can't find fingers, can you find a body? If you can't find a body, can you find a person? Why not? Because they don't exist. This is knowledge (vijjā). Isn't this worth contemplating?
Seeing through body parts is ignorance (avijjā). When examining through the body-door, we only find hardness. When looking through the lens of knowledge, we only see visible form. Isn't this worth studying? Think carefully.
If you can't find the 32 parts of the body, can you find a person? If you can't find a person, can you find devas or brahmas? Why not? (Because they don't exist, Venerable Sir). What testifies completely to the non-existence of beings, devas, and brahmas? (Hardness testifies, Venerable Sir). Doesn't the nature of hardness, the element of hardness, the ultimate hardness bear witness?
Don't we get body-consciousness, a mental phenomenon, when knowing hardness? Isn't hardness a physical phenomenon? These are the two things - mind and matter. Therefore, search anywhere in matter - can you find beings? Search anywhere in mind - can you find beings? Why not find them? Isn't it taught as 'void of mind and matter'?
The 32 parts of the body exist conventionally. Beings, devas, and brahmas exist conventionally. Isn't this worth examining? Both the conventional and ultimate exist as mind and matter. How does mind and matter exist? Isn't it worth investigating? They exist as impermanent, as suffering, as non-self."
"Are anicca, dukkha, and anatta good or bad qualities? Day after day, are we living with happiness or suffering? When we truly understand this suffering, do we abandon it or not? Can we abandon it without understanding it? We can only abandon what we understand.
For one who has aggregates, can they escape aging, sickness, and death? What truth is this? (It's the Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir). It's truly suffering. We live with suffering day after day. When we truly understand this as suffering, do we still want to obtain these kinds of aggregates again? Understanding leads to not wanting it. When we understand, don't we abandon it?
Before, didn't we wrongly perceive things as humans, devas, and brahmas? Weren't we wrong in our perception, understanding, and views? These are the three types of perversion (vipallāsa). Isn't this worth examining? This is why craving (taṇhā) and clinging (upādāna) arise. Isn't this worth investigating? Study this.
Looking at these aggregates, we see suffering. But when we wrongly apprehend this suffering, don't we mistakenly see it as human happiness, deva happiness, brahma happiness? Because of this wrong understanding, we performed meritorious formations (puññābhisaṅkhāra) and imperturbable formations (āneñjābhisaṅkhāra). Wanting human aggregates and deva aggregates, didn't we perform acts of giving (dāna)? Didn't we observe moral precepts (sīla)?
Think about it. Isn't this what's taught as meritorious formations? Due to these wholesome deeds of giving and morality, we obtain human existence and deva existence. As humans, can we escape aging, sickness, and death? As devas, can we escape aging, sickness, and death? No, we cannot. What truth is this? (It's the Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir)."
"Practicing the 40 meditation subjects is āneñjābhisaṅkhāra (imperturbable formations). Isn't it taught that with concentration from these practices, one can even know others' thoughts? With further development, one can perform supernatural feats. When consciousness ceases in this way, one obtains brahma aggregates. But can brahmas escape aging, sickness and death? What truth is this? (It's the Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir).
Apuññābhisaṅkhāra (demeritorious formations) leads to the four woeful states. Are these formations satisfactory or not? Formations mean conditioning - conditioning to obtain human aggregates, deva aggregates, brahma aggregates. Human and deva aggregates come from puññābhisaṅkhāra, brahma aggregates from āneñjābhisaṅkhāra, and the four woeful realms' aggregates from apuññābhisaṅkhāra - isn't this what's taught?
Isn't it worth examining these formations? Do they arise by themselves or through causes and conditions? Looking backward, don't we find ignorance (avijjā)? Don't we wrongly apprehend the five aggregates as beings and persons?
Can one who has aggregates escape aging, sickness and death? What truth is this? (It's the Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir). Don't we wrongly perceive this suffering as human happiness, deva happiness, brahma happiness? Isn't this called avijjā? Because of this avijjā, formations arise.
If avijjā ceases, will formations still come? Think about it. Isn't avijjā taught as the cycle of defilements? When there's avijjā, aren't there also craving and clinging? These three - avijjā, taṇhā, upādāna - can be summarized as avijjā. Isn't this worth studying?
When we know them as aggregates, isn't our attention correct? Knowing the five aggregates as impermanent, as suffering, as non-self - isn't this right attention? When we know the five aggregates, doesn't wrong view fall away? Doesn't doubt cease?
When we know impermanence, does craving still come? Does clinging still come? Does kamma still come? Don't the three cycles break? When there's dissolution, doesn't the story of aggregates end? Isn't this taught as the Truth of Cessation (nirodha-sacca)? This must be examined carefully. These are the essential points..."
Apuññābhisaṅkhāra (demeritorious formations) leads to the four woeful states. Are these formations satisfactory or not? Formations mean conditioning - conditioning to obtain human aggregates, deva aggregates, brahma aggregates. Human and deva aggregates come from puññābhisaṅkhāra, brahma aggregates from āneñjābhisaṅkhāra, and the four woeful realms' aggregates from apuññābhisaṅkhāra - isn't this what's taught?
Isn't it worth examining these formations? Do they arise by themselves or through causes and conditions? Looking backward, don't we find ignorance (avijjā)? Don't we wrongly apprehend the five aggregates as beings and persons?
Can one who has aggregates escape aging, sickness and death? What truth is this? (It's the Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir). Don't we wrongly perceive this suffering as human happiness, deva happiness, brahma happiness? Isn't this called avijjā? Because of this avijjā, formations arise.
If avijjā ceases, will formations still come? Think about it. Isn't avijjā taught as the cycle of defilements? When there's avijjā, aren't there also craving and clinging? These three - avijjā, taṇhā, upādāna - can be summarized as avijjā. Isn't this worth studying?
When we know them as aggregates, isn't our attention correct? Knowing the five aggregates as impermanent, as suffering, as non-self - isn't this right attention? When we know the five aggregates, doesn't wrong view fall away? Doesn't doubt cease?
When we know impermanence, does craving still come? Does clinging still come? Does kamma still come? Don't the three cycles break? When there's dissolution, doesn't the story of aggregates end? Isn't this taught as the Truth of Cessation (nirodha-sacca)? This must be examined carefully. These are the essential points..."
This teaching emphasizes how proper understanding of suffering leads to dispassion and the desire to abandon saṃsāric existence, rather than performing actions that lead to continued rebirth in various realms.