"Let me share a recent practical demonstration I witnessed. There were about 8 small cups, each able to hold 20-30 ticals of various high-quality colored paints.
In front of 10-15 people, paint tubes were opened and mixed with hot water in these cups. Everyone could see the paint tubes and the mixing process.
There was a large white canvas, and when the paints were applied and artistically rendered, they created images of a famous leading actress on one side and a famous leading actor on the other.
When people saw these images, didn't the women develop attachment (rāga) and desire when seeing the actor? And didn't the men develop desire when seeing the actress? But what were they really seeing - the actress/actor or just paint?
Study these images carefully. When looking with ordinary eyes - the eyes given by our parents - we see an actress and actor. Isn't this worth contemplating? But when we look with the eye of wisdom, what do we see - the actress/actor or just paint?
Would someone who sees it as mere paint develop rāga (lust), dosa (anger), or moha (delusion)? These defilements arise because we see it as an actress or actor. This shows how important it is to understand wrong perception (ayoniso manasikāra).
Therefore, isn't it important to investigate? As taught, perception covers what we see, and only by investigating perception can we become free from doubt. What we actually see is just visible form (rūpa). Perception labels it as 'actress' or 'actor'. Isn't this worth contemplating? This is how we should study. What appears to our vision is just rūpakkhandha (material aggregate of form)."
"The Rūpakkhandha (Material Aggregate)
This great teaching of rūpakkhandha (material form) - did the Buddha teach it as something substantial, or like a bubble in a stream or river? If you see it as a bubble, do you still find anything to love or hate in it?
This bubble appears quite large, doesn't it? When you touch it with your fingers, no matter how big it seems, doesn't it burst between your thumb and index finger? When it bursts, is there any essence to it? Ah, this shows the essenceless nature of rūpakkhandha!
When it hits sticks or logs, it completely dissolves, doesn't it? When it breaks, the bubble simply returns to being water. Where did this bubble come from? It arose from water, and when it breaks, it returns to water, you see?
Similarly, for those who have received this body, isn't it necessary to understand that rūpakkhandha - this physical form - is just like a bubble? When seen this way, do you still find anything to love or hate? This is the teaching concerning rūpakkhandha."
This teaching uses the simile of a water bubble to illustrate the insubstantial, impermanent nature of physical form. Just as a bubble appears solid but has no essence and eventually returns to water, our physical form is ultimately empty of any lasting essence. Understanding this truth helps release us from attachment and aversion based on physical appearances.
This is in the Pheṇapiṇḍūpama Sutta (SN 22.95), where the Buddha compares form to a foam bubble to demonstrate its empty, insubstantial nature.
This great teaching of rūpakkhandha (material form) - did the Buddha teach it as something substantial, or like a bubble in a stream or river? If you see it as a bubble, do you still find anything to love or hate in it?
This bubble appears quite large, doesn't it? When you touch it with your fingers, no matter how big it seems, doesn't it burst between your thumb and index finger? When it bursts, is there any essence to it? Ah, this shows the essenceless nature of rūpakkhandha!
When it hits sticks or logs, it completely dissolves, doesn't it? When it breaks, the bubble simply returns to being water. Where did this bubble come from? It arose from water, and when it breaks, it returns to water, you see?
Similarly, for those who have received this body, isn't it necessary to understand that rūpakkhandha - this physical form - is just like a bubble? When seen this way, do you still find anything to love or hate? This is the teaching concerning rūpakkhandha."
This teaching uses the simile of a water bubble to illustrate the insubstantial, impermanent nature of physical form. Just as a bubble appears solid but has no essence and eventually returns to water, our physical form is ultimately empty of any lasting essence. Understanding this truth helps release us from attachment and aversion based on physical appearances.
This is in the Pheṇapiṇḍūpama Sutta (SN 22.95), where the Buddha compares form to a foam bubble to demonstrate its empty, insubstantial nature.
"Vedanakkhandha (Aggregate of Feeling)
When we're free from loving and hating in rūpakkhandha, what about feelings (vedanā)? Didn't the Buddha teach that feelings are like water bubbles? This is especially clear when cooking - don't those bubbles in boiling water look like little silver bowls or oil bubbles? They appear and burst, appear and burst.
They keep appearing and bursting, being replaced by new ones. Is there any essence in them? Whether you experience pleasant feelings or unpleasant ones, can they free you from aging, sickness, and death?
Let's use a worldly example - don't people call someone a 'wealthy person' in this world? When we say 'wealthy person,' doesn't this imply the existence of poor people? Isn't this worth contemplating? We say 'rich' because there are poor people, and there are poor people because there are rich people. Isn't this worth reflecting upon?
Can that wealthy person escape aging, sickness, and death? Can the poor person escape it? Can the middle-class person escape it? What Noble Truth is this? (It's the Noble Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir). See how vedanakkhandha arises and passes away - what Noble Truth is this? (It's the Noble Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir)."
This teaching illustrates how feelings, like bubbles in boiling water, are impermanent and without essence. Whether pleasant or unpleasant, all feelings are subject to the Noble Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Sacca) and cannot provide lasting satisfaction or escape from the fundamental conditions of existence - aging, sickness, and death.
This understanding helps us develop detachment from both pleasant and unpleasant feelings, seeing them as merely passing phenomena within the scope of Dukkha.
When we're free from loving and hating in rūpakkhandha, what about feelings (vedanā)? Didn't the Buddha teach that feelings are like water bubbles? This is especially clear when cooking - don't those bubbles in boiling water look like little silver bowls or oil bubbles? They appear and burst, appear and burst.
They keep appearing and bursting, being replaced by new ones. Is there any essence in them? Whether you experience pleasant feelings or unpleasant ones, can they free you from aging, sickness, and death?
Let's use a worldly example - don't people call someone a 'wealthy person' in this world? When we say 'wealthy person,' doesn't this imply the existence of poor people? Isn't this worth contemplating? We say 'rich' because there are poor people, and there are poor people because there are rich people. Isn't this worth reflecting upon?
Can that wealthy person escape aging, sickness, and death? Can the poor person escape it? Can the middle-class person escape it? What Noble Truth is this? (It's the Noble Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir). See how vedanakkhandha arises and passes away - what Noble Truth is this? (It's the Noble Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir)."
This teaching illustrates how feelings, like bubbles in boiling water, are impermanent and without essence. Whether pleasant or unpleasant, all feelings are subject to the Noble Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Sacca) and cannot provide lasting satisfaction or escape from the fundamental conditions of existence - aging, sickness, and death.
This understanding helps us develop detachment from both pleasant and unpleasant feelings, seeing them as merely passing phenomena within the scope of Dukkha.
"Saññakkhandha (Aggregate of Perception)
Didn't the Buddha teach that saññakkhandha is like a mirage? During Tagu and Kason months (April-May), when ground vapor rises and sunlight falls from above, don't people mistake the plains for water? Isn't this taught as being like a mirage?
Saññakkhandha is like a mirage. When deer are thirsty, don't they go searching for water? Standing on the cliff, they see what appears to be a vast water surface below. Don't they go down to drink? When they reach there, do they find any water? It's just a plain!
Don't they have to look up again? The water appears to be just a bit further ahead. Don't they keep following it? When they reach that spot, do they find any water? They look up and still see it ahead. They keep following this pattern.
Don't these deer eventually die of thirst? Did they die from drinking water or from thirst? How frightening this is! Isn't this why the Buddha taught that saññakkhandha is like a mirage? Is there any essence in it? No, there isn't."
Didn't the Buddha teach that saññakkhandha is like a mirage? During Tagu and Kason months (April-May), when ground vapor rises and sunlight falls from above, don't people mistake the plains for water? Isn't this taught as being like a mirage?
Saññakkhandha is like a mirage. When deer are thirsty, don't they go searching for water? Standing on the cliff, they see what appears to be a vast water surface below. Don't they go down to drink? When they reach there, do they find any water? It's just a plain!
Don't they have to look up again? The water appears to be just a bit further ahead. Don't they keep following it? When they reach that spot, do they find any water? They look up and still see it ahead. They keep following this pattern.
Don't these deer eventually die of thirst? Did they die from drinking water or from thirst? How frightening this is! Isn't this why the Buddha taught that saññakkhandha is like a mirage? Is there any essence in it? No, there isn't."
"Saṅkhārakkhandha (Aggregate of Mental Formations)
Didn't the Buddha compare saṅkhārakkhandha to a plantain trunk? If you cut a banana tree at its top and bottom, and peel away the layers of its trunk, will you find any essence inside? There is no essence, is there? Isn't this worth investigating?
Didn't the Buddha teach about puññābhisaṅkhāra, apuññābhisaṅkhāra, and āneñjābhisaṅkhāra? Puññābhisaṅkhāra refers to meritorious actions like giving (dāna) and moral conduct (sīla). Don't these merit-making activities lead to human or celestial rebirth? This is puññābhisaṅkhāra. Consider this in ordinary terms - these are acts of charity and morality.
When one gets a human body, can they escape aging, sickness, and death? When one gets a celestial body, can they escape aging, sickness, and death? This is puññābhisaṅkhāra - is there any essence in it? Isn't this why it's compared to a plantain trunk?
Āneñjābhisaṅkhāra refers to the practice of the 40 meditation objects. Through such practice, one might gain the ability to read others' minds, isn't that what's taught? One might even develop supernatural powers like flying through the air.
But even if one achieves these powers and is reborn in the Brahma realm, can they escape aging, sickness, and death? This is āneñjābhisaṅkhāra. That's why it's compared to a plantain trunk. Is there any essence in āneñjābhisaṅkhāra? No, there isn't."
Didn't the Buddha compare saṅkhārakkhandha to a plantain trunk? If you cut a banana tree at its top and bottom, and peel away the layers of its trunk, will you find any essence inside? There is no essence, is there? Isn't this worth investigating?
Didn't the Buddha teach about puññābhisaṅkhāra, apuññābhisaṅkhāra, and āneñjābhisaṅkhāra? Puññābhisaṅkhāra refers to meritorious actions like giving (dāna) and moral conduct (sīla). Don't these merit-making activities lead to human or celestial rebirth? This is puññābhisaṅkhāra. Consider this in ordinary terms - these are acts of charity and morality.
When one gets a human body, can they escape aging, sickness, and death? When one gets a celestial body, can they escape aging, sickness, and death? This is puññābhisaṅkhāra - is there any essence in it? Isn't this why it's compared to a plantain trunk?
Āneñjābhisaṅkhāra refers to the practice of the 40 meditation objects. Through such practice, one might gain the ability to read others' minds, isn't that what's taught? One might even develop supernatural powers like flying through the air.
But even if one achieves these powers and is reborn in the Brahma realm, can they escape aging, sickness, and death? This is āneñjābhisaṅkhāra. That's why it's compared to a plantain trunk. Is there any essence in āneñjābhisaṅkhāra? No, there isn't."
"When wrong view (diṭṭhi) is eliminated, doesn't doubt (vicikicchā) cease too? Isn't this worth investigating? Think about it. After giving and offering, doesn't it all pass away? Is what passes away permanent or impermanent?
When you see the impermanence of intention (cetanā), when you see impermanence, do you still see intention? You see impermanence, not intention anymore. What do you see - intention or impermanence? Even when seeing intention, do you see persons and beings? This is just intention.
When you see it as mere intention, wrong view falls away. When you understand impermanence, does craving still come? Does clinging come? Does kamma come? Don't all three types of dependent origination cease - the dependent origination of craving, clinging, and kamma?
As the Letwe Sayadaw said, 'Maggo nama cetana' (intention is the path). Isn't this worth investigating? How satisfying this is! Because of not understanding intention, seeing it as persons and beings, people want human happiness, celestial happiness, and perform meritorious deeds. Is this right or wrong mindfulness? It's wrong, isn't it? This is acting with the view of persons and beings.
That's why the Mogok Sayadaw gave this example: When someone commits a crime, don't they have to pay a bribe to be released from prison? They pay the bribe wanting to be free from prison. Similarly, one gives offerings wanting to be free from the aggregates (khandhas), knowing their disadvantages. Do they still want to obtain aggregates?
When giving with the wish to be free from aggregates, does craving still come? They don't want the aggregates anymore.
Are all five aggregates permanent or impermanent? Isn't this worth investigating? Don't we see the impermanence of saṅkhārakkhandha? It's the truth of impermanence - the characteristic of impermanence is suffering, the characteristic of suffering is suffering, the characteristic of non-self is suffering. There is nothing but suffering.
When understanding intention this way, does craving come? Does clinging come? Does kamma come? Isn't this worth investigating? This is how one should give - giving to be free from the aggregates, giving for liberation."
When you see the impermanence of intention (cetanā), when you see impermanence, do you still see intention? You see impermanence, not intention anymore. What do you see - intention or impermanence? Even when seeing intention, do you see persons and beings? This is just intention.
When you see it as mere intention, wrong view falls away. When you understand impermanence, does craving still come? Does clinging come? Does kamma come? Don't all three types of dependent origination cease - the dependent origination of craving, clinging, and kamma?
As the Letwe Sayadaw said, 'Maggo nama cetana' (intention is the path). Isn't this worth investigating? How satisfying this is! Because of not understanding intention, seeing it as persons and beings, people want human happiness, celestial happiness, and perform meritorious deeds. Is this right or wrong mindfulness? It's wrong, isn't it? This is acting with the view of persons and beings.
That's why the Mogok Sayadaw gave this example: When someone commits a crime, don't they have to pay a bribe to be released from prison? They pay the bribe wanting to be free from prison. Similarly, one gives offerings wanting to be free from the aggregates (khandhas), knowing their disadvantages. Do they still want to obtain aggregates?
When giving with the wish to be free from aggregates, does craving still come? They don't want the aggregates anymore.
Are all five aggregates permanent or impermanent? Isn't this worth investigating? Don't we see the impermanence of saṅkhārakkhandha? It's the truth of impermanence - the characteristic of impermanence is suffering, the characteristic of suffering is suffering, the characteristic of non-self is suffering. There is nothing but suffering.
When understanding intention this way, does craving come? Does clinging come? Does kamma come? Isn't this worth investigating? This is how one should give - giving to be free from the aggregates, giving for liberation."
"Viññāṇakkhandha (Aggregate of Consciousness)
Didn't the Buddha compare viññāṇakkhandha to a magic show? In a magic show, aren't there gold, silver, gems, and jewels? Yes, there are. Isn't it like merchants selling things? But can you actually use these things? Can you cook and eat the rice shown in magic tricks? Is it real?
Viññāṇakkhandha is like a magic show. In another way, it's like a dream. In a dream, someone wins the lottery - say 300 lakhs. Before waking up, don't they start dreaming about what to do with it? They're already building houses in their dream, buying cars, aren't they?
Don't they buy all sorts of things? Aren't they lost in their imagination? When they wake up, does anything happen as they imagined? Similarly, aren't there people who dream of finding pots of gold or silver?
When they wake up, are those dreamed-of gold and silver still there? It's like a dream. Therefore, if viññāṇakkhandha is like a dream or magic show, is there anything in it to delight in or be attached to?
This is taught so we understand the disadvantages of the aggregates. Isn't this worth studying? We need to understand the disadvantages of the aggregates, think about it. Isn't it taught that when the Dhamma is lost, look for it in yourself, and when you look in yourself, you find the Dhamma?
What kind of Dhamma do we find? Can those who get the aggregates escape aging, sickness, and death? Isn't aging apparent? Isn't sickness apparent? Isn't death apparent? What Noble Truth is this? (It's the Noble Truth of Suffering, Lord).
That's why we practice to understand this Noble Truth of Suffering. That's why we listen to Dhamma teachings. These are the essential points. Can we abandon what we don't understand? Can we only abandon what we understand? Isn't it taught as the four functions in one moment of Path consciousness - understanding, abandoning, realizing, and developing? Isn't it taught as Suffering and its Origin, Cessation and the Path?"
Didn't the Buddha compare viññāṇakkhandha to a magic show? In a magic show, aren't there gold, silver, gems, and jewels? Yes, there are. Isn't it like merchants selling things? But can you actually use these things? Can you cook and eat the rice shown in magic tricks? Is it real?
Viññāṇakkhandha is like a magic show. In another way, it's like a dream. In a dream, someone wins the lottery - say 300 lakhs. Before waking up, don't they start dreaming about what to do with it? They're already building houses in their dream, buying cars, aren't they?
Don't they buy all sorts of things? Aren't they lost in their imagination? When they wake up, does anything happen as they imagined? Similarly, aren't there people who dream of finding pots of gold or silver?
When they wake up, are those dreamed-of gold and silver still there? It's like a dream. Therefore, if viññāṇakkhandha is like a dream or magic show, is there anything in it to delight in or be attached to?
This is taught so we understand the disadvantages of the aggregates. Isn't this worth studying? We need to understand the disadvantages of the aggregates, think about it. Isn't it taught that when the Dhamma is lost, look for it in yourself, and when you look in yourself, you find the Dhamma?
What kind of Dhamma do we find? Can those who get the aggregates escape aging, sickness, and death? Isn't aging apparent? Isn't sickness apparent? Isn't death apparent? What Noble Truth is this? (It's the Noble Truth of Suffering, Lord).
That's why we practice to understand this Noble Truth of Suffering. That's why we listen to Dhamma teachings. These are the essential points. Can we abandon what we don't understand? Can we only abandon what we understand? Isn't it taught as the four functions in one moment of Path consciousness - understanding, abandoning, realizing, and developing? Isn't it taught as Suffering and its Origin, Cessation and the Path?"
