"When examining the six sense-doors and aggregates, do we find different kinds of beings - humans, devas, brahmas, animals, petas, asuras - or do we find just the five aggregates? Is it because these beings don't exist that we don't find them? #If_they_don't_exist,_do_we_need_to_cling to views about humans, devas, and brahmas?
What we actually find is not humans, devas, or brahmas, but the five aggregates. Isn't it worth examining how these five aggregates exist? What is the nature of form aggregate? (It's the nature of transformation and decay, Venerable Sir). What is the nature of feeling aggregate? (It's the nature of experiencing, arising and passing away, Venerable Sir).
What is the nature of perception aggregate? (It's the nature of recognition, arising and passing away, Venerable Sir). What is the nature of mental formations aggregate? (It's the nature of volition and conditioning, arising and passing away, Venerable Sir). What is the nature of consciousness aggregate? (It's the nature of knowing, arising and passing away, Venerable Sir).
These five aggregates - they cease after seeing, cease after hearing, cease after smelling, cease after tasting, cease after touching, cease after knowing - do we find the aggregates or their non-existence? #If_they_don't_exist,_how_can_we_cling to them? Since beings like humans, devas, and brahmas never existed in the first place, is there anything to cling to?
The five aggregates that seem to exist - don't they arise and pass away? Can they be objects of clinging? This is how personality view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is eliminated. #When_personality_view_is_eliminated,_the_doors_to_lower_realms_are_closed. If one continues practicing, won't one complete the tasks of Stream-entry, Once-returning, Non-returning, and Arahantship?
#One_needs_to_understand_the_aggregates. One needs to understand the Noble Truths. One needs to understand Dependent Origination. Only through understanding can we eliminate [defilements]. Without understanding, how can we eliminate them? Therefore, regarding these five aggregates, there are two ways of attending: wrong attention and right attention.
Besides the aggregates that appear as objects of seeing and contemplation, #is_there_anything_else_to_contemplate? In the eye, only aggregates appear. In the ear, only aggregates appear. In all six sense-doors, only aggregates appear. Only by understanding these aggregates can we break free from views about humans, devas, and brahmas. Isn't this worth examining?
#When_looking_with_the_eyes_given_by_parents, we see humans, beings, mountains, rivers, villages, and countries. But when looking with the eye of wisdom, do we see beings or just forms? Do we see villages and countries or just forms?
When we clearly and precisely understand this form aggregate, personality view is eliminated. Isn't this worth examining? We need to examine right and wrong attention. Therefore, #we_need_to_distinguish_conventional_and_ultimate_truth_through_full_understanding."
"Aren't these five aggregates conventionally designated as various kinds of beings - humans, devas, brahmas, animals, petas, asuras, and hell beings? Aren't they called such?
When we truly investigate, there are conventional names and designations, but #do_they_exist_as_actual_objects_of_sight? These are just conventional terms and expressions, aren't they? Can they be pointed to here and there? Isn't this worth examining?
That's why the Buddha didn't reject conventional terms. Didn't he call Ānanda 'younger brother'? Didn't he call Rāhula 'son'? Didn't he address disciples as 'dear sons and daughters'? Did the Buddha reject these terms? Isn't it worth examining what exactly was rejected?
Don't we think 'Venerable Ānanda' exists? Don't we take it as real? Let's examine with the wisdom given by the Buddha. When we examine from head to toe, do we find 'Venerable Ānanda' or do we find heat? Do we find 'Venerable Ānanda' or do we find cold?
Heat is uṇha-tejo, cold is sīta-tejo. #We_only_find_heat_and_cold, right? We think it's 'Venerable Ānanda', but what we find is the fire element. What knows hot and cold - is it a self or body-consciousness? Isn't body-consciousness a mental phenomenon? Aren't hot and cold physical phenomena? #These_are_just_mind_and_matter.
Is it 'Venerable Ānanda' or mind and matter? Don't we think it's 'Venerable Ānanda'? Don't we take it as existing? What we find - is it 'Venerable Ānanda' or mind and matter? Is 'Venerable Ānanda' not found because it exists or because it doesn't exist? When we clearly understand it doesn't exist, #do_we_need_to_cling_anymore? Doesn't clinging fall away?
Can't we still conventionally designate mind and matter as 'Venerable Ānanda'? #But_is_it_actually_there? These are just conventional designations, aren't they? Do children come with names at birth? These are just conventional names given by parents, right? Isn't this worth examining?
#'Human'_is_just_a_concept. 'Deva' is just a concept. 'Brahma' is just a concept. 'Woman' and 'man' are just concepts. What we actually see - is it a human or visible form? Is it beings or visible form? Is it woman/man or visible form? Isn't this worth examining? Therefore, isn't it taught that perception covers up reality, and doubt is cleared only when formations are understood?"
When we truly investigate, there are conventional names and designations, but #do_they_exist_as_actual_objects_of_sight? These are just conventional terms and expressions, aren't they? Can they be pointed to here and there? Isn't this worth examining?
That's why the Buddha didn't reject conventional terms. Didn't he call Ānanda 'younger brother'? Didn't he call Rāhula 'son'? Didn't he address disciples as 'dear sons and daughters'? Did the Buddha reject these terms? Isn't it worth examining what exactly was rejected?
Don't we think 'Venerable Ānanda' exists? Don't we take it as real? Let's examine with the wisdom given by the Buddha. When we examine from head to toe, do we find 'Venerable Ānanda' or do we find heat? Do we find 'Venerable Ānanda' or do we find cold?
Heat is uṇha-tejo, cold is sīta-tejo. #We_only_find_heat_and_cold, right? We think it's 'Venerable Ānanda', but what we find is the fire element. What knows hot and cold - is it a self or body-consciousness? Isn't body-consciousness a mental phenomenon? Aren't hot and cold physical phenomena? #These_are_just_mind_and_matter.
Is it 'Venerable Ānanda' or mind and matter? Don't we think it's 'Venerable Ānanda'? Don't we take it as existing? What we find - is it 'Venerable Ānanda' or mind and matter? Is 'Venerable Ānanda' not found because it exists or because it doesn't exist? When we clearly understand it doesn't exist, #do_we_need_to_cling_anymore? Doesn't clinging fall away?
Can't we still conventionally designate mind and matter as 'Venerable Ānanda'? #But_is_it_actually_there? These are just conventional designations, aren't they? Do children come with names at birth? These are just conventional names given by parents, right? Isn't this worth examining?
#'Human'_is_just_a_concept. 'Deva' is just a concept. 'Brahma' is just a concept. 'Woman' and 'man' are just concepts. What we actually see - is it a human or visible form? Is it beings or visible form? Is it woman/man or visible form? Isn't this worth examining? Therefore, isn't it taught that perception covers up reality, and doubt is cleared only when formations are understood?"
