"Let's hear something unprecedented. Here's a simile to understand how to break self-view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi). Imagine a skilled basket weaver who neatly arranges reed strips and sprinkles them with water. About 4-5 people are watching them work.
When the reeds are sprinkled with water, can't you see the reed strips? At this moment, do you see a basket? No. Then they weave, placing three strips over two, two over three. After half an hour, a basket is completed. Now do you see reed strips or a basket? You don't see the reed strips anymore. Earlier you saw reed strips, right?
Now what do you see - reed strips or a basket? Is this something others need to tell you, or is it your direct experience? If you unravel the basket from where it was started, what do you find? Ah, you find reed strips! Where did the basket go? Isn't this worth contemplating? The basket cannot be found.
When those same reed strips are arranged differently and woven again for half an hour, another basket appears. Can you still see the reed strips? No. What do you see now - reed strips or basket? In reality, neither the reed strips nor the basket truly exists. Isn't it just your mind perceiving it as such?
When it's woven into a basket, do you see reed strips or a basket? You only see a basket, right? But when you take it apart again, what do you find - basket or reed strips? This is how people are deluded, unable to escape the 31 planes of existence. This is why we need to understand the aggregates.
Isn't it taught 'Idaṃ me puññaṃ āsavakkhayaṃ vahaṃ hotu' (May this merit of mine lead to the destruction of the taints)? The āsavas (taints) will only end when we understand the disadvantages of the aggregates. Isn't this worth examining?"
This simile beautifully illustrates how our conventional reality (the basket) is made up of ultimate realities (reed strips), and how our perception shifts between these two levels, leading to confusion about the true nature of phenomena.
"Let's hear something unprecedented. Imagine having 8 small containers, each holding about a handful of high-quality paint. There are paint powders, right? When we ask the audience if they see the powder, don't they say 'yes'?
When we put the powder in the containers and mix it with water, doesn't it become paint? Is this something others need to tell you, or is it your direct experience? You see the powder being added, and you see it being stirred with brushes, right?
With these 8 containers full of paint, when we ask the audience what they see, how do they answer? They see paint, right? There's a white canvas in front. When seeing just the blank canvas, does greed arise? Does anger arise? No.
Then, with skillful hands, we paint a portrait of a famous actress on the canvas. We color it beautifully. And there, we paint a famous actor too. Now, do you see the paint or do you see the actress? Do you see the paint or do you see the actor?
When women see the actor, doesn't desire arise? Doesn't craving and attachment develop? When men see the actress, doesn't desire arise? Doesn't craving develop? That's because they're seeing the actress and actor, not the paint. That's why desire arises.
When we put the paint back into their respective containers, what do you see now - the actress or the paint? The actor or the paint? Think about it. This is how people are deluded. Isn't this worth contemplating?
When you see the paint, do you still see the actress? Do you still see the actor? Why not? What was really there - the actress or the paint? The actor or the paint?"
"When we look through the spectacles of wisdom given by the Buddha, we see just the form-element (rūpa-dhātu). Isn't this what's taught as form aggregate (rūpakkhandha)?
Isn't this form aggregate taught to be like a bubble of water? When you see and understand it as a bubble, do you still find anything to love or hate? No, you don't. Isn't this worth studying? When truth is known, doesn't falsehood disappear? Yes, falsehood disappears. These are the essential points.
Let's examine again through direct experience (sandiṭṭhika). Isn't it taught that when Dhamma is lost, we should look within ourselves? When we look within, we find the Dhamma. Think about this. Now, put on these wisdom spectacles given by the Buddha. When looking through these spectacles, do you see paint or do you see the form-element? Think carefully.
Don't we usually perceive things as people, as women and men? But when we look through the Buddha's wisdom spectacles, do we see people or do we see just form? Do we see women and men or do we see just form? We see just form, right? Is this something others need to tell you, or is it your direct experience?
When seeing just form in this way, does lust still arise? Does anger still arise? Does delusion still arise?"
This teaching illustrates how the wisdom of the Buddha helps us see through conventional reality (concepts of people, men, women) to ultimate reality (just form-element), and how this correct perception leads to the cessation of defilements (kilesas) like lust, anger, and delusion.
The "wisdom spectacles" (vijjā) represent right view (sammā-diṭṭhi), which allows us to see things as they truly are (yathābhūta-ñāṇadassana).
"👂 EAR
When you think it's a person and tap it, do you find a person or sound? If sound were a person, wouldn't all sounds be people? That's not the case. You only hear sound.
👃 NOSE
When you think it's a person and smell it, do you find a person or odor? When you think it's a woman or man and smell, do you find a woman/man or just odor? Is this something others need to tell you, or your direct experience?
👅 TONGUE
When you think it's a man or woman and taste, do you find a woman or saltiness? Do you find a man or saltiness? This is the taste-element.
💫 BODY
From head to toe, when you think it's a person and touch it, don't you find hardness and softness? Hardness is earth-element, softness is earth-element. Isn't this worth investigating? You only find hardness and softness, do you find a person?
Isn't hardness and softness taught as earth-element (pathavī)? Is it a self that knows hardness and softness, or body-consciousness? Does it occur with just one consciousness alone? Don't feeling, perception, and volition arise together? Think about this. Is it a person, deity or brahma that experiences hardness/softness, or is it feeling (vedanā)?
Is it a self that perceives hardness/softness, or perception (saññā)? Is it a self that motivates the experiencing and perceiving, or volition (cetanā)? When these three combine, don't we have four mental aggregates? Only when these four are complete does touching-consciousness arise. Are these four mental aggregates people, deities, or brahmas? Are they cities or countries?
Is the body-sensitivity a person, deity or brahma? Is the earth-element a person, deity or brahma? When we analyze the aggregates, don't we find the form aggregate? Combined with the four mental aggregates, (We have five aggregates, Lord). So is it an actress or five aggregates? An actor or five aggregates? People, deities, brahmas or five aggregates? We imagine people, deities, and brahmas, but what we find are the five aggregates.
Like thinking there's a basket but finding reed strips, isn't this worth examining? When you touch what you think is reed strips, do you find reed strips or hardness? When you touch what you think is a basket, do you find a basket or hardness? Whether eyes closed or open, you only find hardness. Is it that reed strips aren't found because they don't exist? Is it that the basket isn't found because it doesn't exist? If they don't exist, is there any reason to cling to them?
Similarly now, when we touch what we think is a person, we only find aggregates. Isn't this worth investigating? When we analyze the aggregates this way, doesn't the wrong view of self fall away? When wrong view falls away, will you still believe in creation by Great Brahmas, eternal God, or Vishnu? Doesn't doubt cease? The taints of wrong view and ignorance are eliminated. Isn't this worth examining?"
"The form aggregate also needs to be investigated, all five aggregates need to be examined. Didn't the Mogok Sayadaw teach that these five aggregates are like murderous men? They are murderers! What we have right now, are they beings, deities, and brahmas, or are they five aggregates?
Did the Buddha teach these as permanent dwellings or as aggregates (khandha)? If they're aggregates, they must be endured. Can we escape aging, sickness, and death? No, we cannot! Isn't this worth investigating? Is something that cannot escape aging, sickness, and death happiness or suffering? We live daily with suffering. Isn't this worth contemplating?
It's like ignorance (avijjā) and craving (taṇhā) are overlaid - seeing a basket here, seeing reed strips there. But what really exists - is it reed strips or just hardness? Is it a basket or just hardness? Isn't it taught 'dependent on ignorance, formations arise'? It's due to wrong attention (ayoniso manasikāra) that we see baskets and reed strips. Isn't this worth considering? This is how we see beings, deities, and brahmas.
When we examine with the wisdom given by the Buddha, we only find hardness and softness, right? Hardness and softness are earth-element. The consciousness that touches is mental phenomena (nāma). Hardness and softness are material phenomena (rūpa). Just these two - mind and matter. Are they beings, deities, and brahmas, or just mind and matter?
We only find mind and matter, right? This is knowing the truth. When truth is known, will you still believe in creation by the Four Great Brahmas, eternal God, or Vishnu? Doesn't doubt cease? The taints of wrong view and ignorance are eliminated..."
