The "Three Sons Analogy", "Breaking Attachments" ,"Conceptual Knowledge" and "The Four Noble Truths"!

 "Let's examine again what exists and what doesn't. When people marry and have 3-4 children, don't they have to give them names? Listen.

Say there are three sons. The eldest is named U Ba Oo, the middle one Ba Aung, and the youngest Ba Maung. Did they come with these names at birth? No.

These are conventional designations given by the parents, understand? They're named this way just for communication. When you look through the wisdom-spectacles given by the Buddha, do you see Ba Oo or do you see form? Ba Aung or form? Ba Maung or form? You only see form.

When you touch what you think is Ba Oo, do you find Ba Oo or just sound? When you smell, do you find Ba Oo or just odor? When you taste, do you find Ba Oo or just taste sensation?

When you examine from head to toe with the hand of wisdom, do you find Ba Oo or just hardness and softness? Ba Aung or hardness and softness? Ba Maung or hardness and softness?

Hardness is pathavī, softness is pathavī. Is the knowing of hardness and softness a person or body-consciousness? Does consciousness arise alone? Aren't feeling, perception, and volition involved? Is the feeling of hardness and softness a human, deity, or brahma - or just feeling?

Is the perception of hardness and softness a human, deity, or brahma - or just perception? Is the volition directing these experiences a human, deity, or brahma - or just volition? When feeling, perception, and volition combine, don't we have the four mental aggregates? Only when these four are complete does consciousness arise.

So is it Ba Oo or four mental aggregates? Ba Aung or four mental aggregates? Ba Maung or four mental aggregates? Is the body-sensitivity a person? Is hardness and softness a person? When we analyze, don't we find the form aggregate? Combined with the four mental aggregates, what do we have? (Five aggregates, Lord).

Is it Ba Oo or five aggregates? Ba Aung or five aggregates? Ba Maung or five aggregates? The five aggregates are ultimate reality, while Ba Oo, Ba Aung, and Ba Maung are conventional reality - just labels, understand?

Doesn't the reality we encounter prove this? What we find are the five aggregates, not Ba Oo, Ba Aung, or Ba Maung. Aren't the five aggregates taught as sakkāya? Don't the wrong views of self as human, deity, or brahma fall away? Is there anything left to cling to in Ba Oo, Ba Aung, or Ba Maung? They don't even exist!

"Breaking Attachments"

Isn't it worth examining what really exists? Doesn't the form aggregate change and dissolve? Don't feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness arise and pass away? Do we find the five aggregates or their non-existence? If they don't exist, how can we cling to them? Isn't this worth investigating?"

"Isn't it taught that seeing impermanence is the Path? Does craving still come? If craving doesn't come, does clinging still arise? We practice Dhamma to end clinging, understand? Think about it. Isn't this worth investigating? When breaking attachments, when we know the truth, doesn't falsehood disappear?

Humans, devas, and brahmas exist only as concepts. What exists whether designated or not are the five aggregates. Isn't it worth examining how they exist? They exist as impermanent (anicca), as suffering (dukkha), as non-self (anatta). Isn't this worth studying? These are the essential points.

Therefore, analyzing the aggregates breaks identity-view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi). Right now, what appears are humans, devas, and brahmas, but what we actually find are the four great elements. What appears are various pots, but what we find are the four great elements. Isn't this worth investigating? When we see the four great elements, do we still see pots? Why don't we see them? (Because they don't exist, Lord). Ah, because they don't exist. If something doesn't exist, how can we cling to it?"

"Conceptual Knowledge":

"Thinking-knowing, imagining-knowing is mind-consciousness (mano-viññāṇa). When we look with our eyes, we see various pots. This mind-consciousness is like a magic show, or in another way, like a dream. Aren't there people who dream of finding pots of gold and silver? Aren't there those who dream of winning the lottery? Aren't there those who dream of successful business ventures?

Before waking up, don't we fantasize? We do fantasize. But when we wake up, does anything match our fantasies? Is this because these things exist or because they don't exist? That's why it's taught to be like a magic show, like a dream. When we understand this, is there anything left to cling to? There's nothing left to cling to, understand? We can only abandon what we understand. Can we abandon what we don't understand? Strive to understand."

"The Four Noble Truths":

"We need to understand the Four Noble Truths. When we say 'understanding leads to abandonment,' it refers to:
- The Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Sacca)
- The Truth of the Origin of Suffering (Samudaya Sacca)
- The Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (Nirodha Sacca)
- The Truth of the Path (Magga Sacca)

When examining from the perspective of causes, the order is:
1. Samudaya Sacca (Origin)
2. Dukkha Sacca (Suffering)
3. Magga Sacca (Path)
4. Nirodha Sacca (Cessation)

When examining from the perspective of results, the order is:
1. Dukkha Sacca (Suffering)
2. Samudaya Sacca (Origin)
3. Nirodha Sacca (Cessation)
4. Magga Sacca (Path)

Isn't this worth studying?"