The Ayatanas and Paticca-samuppada

General Theravada topics
1

A friend asked me:

What is conditionality? Does it not mean how consciousness arises (every moment) based on a sense organ coming into contact with a sense object? There are 6 of these, and in Chinese agama suttas they call these six realms. And I truly believe these are the only realms we experience.

In one of these realms, name and form come together creating a new consciousness every second. Understanding this is crucial to the serious practitioner.

This is correct. And surely that is taught in the Sutta Pitaka and Abhidhamma Pitaka and the Commentaries.

As you say there is a new consciousness every second: Indeed a new one every split second.
From a discussion with Sujin Boriharnwanaket:
https://classicaltheravada.org/t/sujin- … deos/100/4

In Thailand some people spend their time going north, west, south, to look for dhamma. But when that anyone understands what dhamma is, one doesn’t have to go anywhere, because any moment is dhamma. So it depends on understanding from hearing and considering as pariyatti[intellectual undersatnding], which can condition patipatti[direct understanding], which the Thai use to term patibat. Patipatti means that which reaches reality with right understanding from pariyatti.

Without hearing and considering as pariyatti, no conditions for direct awareness to begin to understand reality, which is so very deep. For example, who can think about that which is eye-base or eye-sense as ayatana, at moment of seeing. At this moment, what is seeing is ayatana, and seeing itself, the manayatana, and the pasada rupa is cakkhayatana and cetasikas which arises with the seeing is dhammayatana. All four have to be present at that moment, or now at this moment. So people just read about ayatana and can remember the six and the twelve, but not knowing ayatanas right now, the living ones, the real ones, not the past ones. So by understanding ayatana at moment of experiencing anything, it is ayatana, right then. And not just one ayatana, not just only the inner and the outer, but citta cetasikas and rupas right then. All are conditioned just to condition one moment of seeing…[…]

1 Like
2

They also asked "Can you explain how suffering arises in a simple manner, (let us imagine the words sutta and abhidhamma do not exist) just based on Paticca samuppada, Buddha’s fundamental teaching."

This is maybe not so simple but from the relevant section of the Visuddhimagga:

Chapter
XV11 Dependent origination
113 “but how does a man who is confused about these
things perform these three kinds of formations?
Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of
taking death thus ‘death in every case is break up of
aggregates(khandas, not-self)’ he figures that it is
lasting being’s transmigration to another incarnation
and so on”.

115 “when he is confused about the round of rebirths,
instead of taking the round of rebirths as pictured
thus: 'an endless chain of aggregates(khandas) of
elements(dhatus) bases (ayatanas) that carries on
unbrokenly is what is called ‘the round or rebirths’
he figures that it is a lasting being that goes from
this world to another world, that comes from another
world to this world"
117"when he is confused about independently-arisen
states, instead of taking the occurrence of formations
to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a
self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes
action…”
161 “a mere state that has got its conditions ushers
in the ensuing existence; While it does not migrate
from the past, with no cause in the past it is not.
So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when
it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of,
saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not
a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither
transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested
here without cause from that”… "

273 “Becomings wheel reveals no known beginning; no
maker, no experiencer there; Void with a twelvefold
voidness,”"

313 “one who sees this rightly abandons the self view
by understanding the absence of a maker. One who sees
it wrongly clings to the moral -inefficacy of action
view because he does not perceive that the causative
function of ignorance etc us established as a law…”
314 “[and so] let a wise man with mindfulness so
practice that he may begin to find a footing in the
deeps of the dependent origination”

Note the emphasis put on the pure conditionality of each moment. The wheel of birth and death, both momentarily (khanika) and conventional (summutti) is explained, and no need for any self in any of it.

2 Likes
3

It helps to know the basics of the ayatanas.
From Nina van Gorkom

Åyatana deals with the association of inner and outer åyatanas. Thus, åyatana always refers to the meeting, the association of several realities. When seeing arises there is the association of eyesense, visible object, seeing and its accompanying cetasikas. These are only åyatanas at the moment they arise and associate. The classification by way of åyatanas shows us that seeing and all the other realities are associating because of conditions. Nobody can make them arise, they are not self. Here we see again that the Abhidhamma points to the goal, the development of right understanding.

1 Like
4

Dear Robert.
Can you explain the meaning of manayatana?
What is it ?

5

dear huongthuong,
as I understand it manāyatana is the variuos types of citta (mano) that arise to experience the object.
Manāyatana* is considered inner ayatana.

I think Sarah explains well here:
https://groups.io/g/dsg/message/168353?p=%2C%2C%2C20%2C0%2C0%2C0%3A%3Arecentpostdate%2Fsticky%2C%2Cmanāyatana%2C20%2C2%2C0%2C84085979

Why is citta, any citta arising, the inner āyatana (manāyatana) whilst any cetasika arising the outer āyatana (dhammāyatana)?

A citta arises all the time and there must be many cetasikas arising with it. Citta is the “innermost”, the chief of experiencing. On its own the citta is not kusala or akusala.The citta is pure (paṇdara) and is tainted by akusala (unwholesomeness). So what is outside to taint the citta? The akusala cetasikas taint it.

Citta is pure in the sense that it experiences the object clearer than cetasikas. The cetasikas have their own functions and characteristics so they cannot be the chief in experiencing.

Usually no one understands the innermost dhamma (reality) because one just understands the kusala or akusala cetasikas.

For example, intention can be known when there is an intention to do something, but the citta isn’t known at such times. It doesn’t appear so this is why it’s innermost. What are usually known are cetasikas and rūpas.

There has to be understanding of the distinction between the citta and the cetasikas. When dosa (aversion) appears it’s not the chief of experiencing, it’s not pure. When dosa appears, the citta doesn’t appear. It’s not a matter of naming it, but of understanding different realities when they appear.

When it’s not tainted or disturbed by akusala, as well as being paṇdara (pure), the citta is also pabhassara (radiant or luminous). The bhavanga cittas and kusala cittas are said to be radiant because of the cetasikas which arise with them.

There must be the understanding of citta, cetasika and rūpa more and more. There is the worldly or conventional way to talk about “inner and outer”, “near and far” and so on but in the absolute sense what is inner and outer or near and far?

For example, we read in the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta “Thus he lives contemplating feelings in feelings internally, or he lives contemplating feeling in feelings externally”.

What is meant?

Usually we think about what is in the body or about our feelings as internal and for the others as external or outside. It’s much deeper and more subtle than what we usually consider. There is no body, there is no self, so what is inner in the Buddha’s Teachings?

When we read about any rūpas as being internal or external (ajjattika or bāhira) it can be understood in two aspects:

  1. The rūpas referred to as “my body” are not the same as those referred to as the “other’s body”, so conventionally it’s correct to speak of internal and external rūpas, internal and external vedanā (feelings) and so on.

  2. In terms of the realities only 5 rūpas can be the inner rūpas. These are eye-sense, ear-sense, nose-sense, tongue-sense and body-sense. These are the only inner rūpas because without them there cannot be any sense experiencing.

For example, at the moment of seeing now, the eye-sense is very close as there is the experiencing through it. It’s the inner rūpa. Other rūpas are far away. The rūpa which appears now, such as that rūpa which is seen is the outer rūpa. It is just to be understood. At such moments there’s no word at all, no thought of inner or outer.

When the texts refer to the āyatanas (associating dhammas), this is the meaning of inner and outer at the moments of sense experiencing.

The main point is that there is no one at all. The seeing now is not the same as the other’s seeing or the next moment of seeing. In each case, however, it is just seeing, no one’s seeing at all.

More and more understanding wears away a little more misunderstanding and wrong view. The point of study is just to understand what appears now as it is. All dhammas are so subtle, the point is not to know all details. If the study doesn’t lead to understanding, it’s useless.

1 Like
6

Encouraged by Ontheway I add some more.
The ayatanas are the meeting place of dhammas. It is almost incredible that a moment of seeing, for instance, can arise - as so many supporting conditions must be present. And then that moment of seeing immediately vanishes .
From
Understanding Realities Now:
Nina’s travelogues
Nina van Gorkom:

We have to understand seeing and visible object. Time and again seeing arises and, thus, we should not be forgetful of the present reality. Some people may find seeing too ordinary to consider, not interesting enough. But it arises because of the coming together of different factors. Visible object and eye-base are rupas that have not fallen away yet. Rupa does not fall away as rapidly as nama.

There are conditions for them to associate exactly at the time they have not fallen away yet, so that kamma, a deed committed in the past, can produce seeing. We always took seeing for granted, but actually, it is amazing that seeing arises. Seeing experiences visible object and only for that extremely short moment the world is bright. When seeing has fallen away other cittas succeed seeing in the eye-door process which, although they do not see, still experience visible object, but the world is no longer bright.

It seems that when we notice persons on account of what has been seen, that the world is still bright, but this is not so. We are thinking and, although our eyes are open, the world is dark. Thinking and other experiences are interspersed with moments of seeing visible object very rapidly, and it seems that we are seeing all the time.

However, the moment of seeing is extremely short, it arises and falls away.
Thus, in reality only one short moment is bright and all other moments are dark. Because of our ignorance we take phenomena for permanent and self. It seems that we see people and things and that whatever we see was there already for a long time and that the world keeps on being bright. In the beginning the momentary arising and falling away of realities, one at a time, cannot be realized.

Understanding has to be developed further so that impermanence can be directly penetrated. We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (IV, First Fifty, Ch 3, § 23, Helpful), that the Buddha said:
“ ‘I will show you a way, brethren, that is helpful for the uprooting of all conceits. Do you listen to it. And what, brethren is that way? Now what think you, brethren? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?’ 357 ‘Impermanent, lord.’ ‘What is impermanent, is that weal or woe?’ ‘Woe, lord.’ ‘Now what is impermanent, woeful, by nature changeable, – is it fitting to regard that as: This is mine. This am I. This is myself?’ ‘Surely not, lord.’ ”

The Buddha then explained the same about the other sense-doors, the objects experienced through them, and the cittas that experience these objects. He said that the person who realizes the truth attains arahatship and eradicates conceit.

2 Likes
7

Thank you for the post.

1 Like
8

From the Salayatana vagga

Once venerable Ananda and the venerable Ud¯ayin were ¯
staying at Kosamb¯ı in Ghosita Park. Then the venerable
Ud¯ayin, rising at eventide from his solitude, went to visit
the Venerable Ananda, and on coming to him . . . after the ¯
exchange of courtesies, sat down at one side. So seated the
venerable Ud¯ayin said to the venerable Ananda: ¯
“Is it possible, friend Ananda, just as this body has in divers ¯
ways been defined, explained, set forth by the Exalted One,
as being without the self . . . is it possible in the same way
to describe the consciousness, to show it, make it plain, set
it forth, make it clear, analyze and expound it as being also
without the self?”
“Just as this body has in divers ways been defined, ex-
plained, set forth by the Exalted One, as being without the
self, friend Ud¯ayin, so also is it possible to describe this con-
sciousness, to show it, make it plain, set it forth, make it
clear, analyze and expound it as being also without the self.
Owing to the eye and visible object arises seeing-consciousness,
does it not, friend?”
“Yes, friend.”
“Well, friend, it is by this method that the Exalted One has
explained, opened up, and shown that this consciousness also
is without the self.”
(The same is said with regard to the other doorways.)

Without the understanding of the Dhamma there is an innate belief that it is I who see, who hears, who thinks, who is doing good or doing bad. But in reality there are only conditioned phenomena which condition more phenomena.
Hence Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe sankhara dukkha
Sabbe dhamma anatta.

2 Likes
9

Dear Robert

What do you reckon the world is bright when seeing is experiencing visible object.
That meant Ajhan Sujin often stressed “nimitta of reality” ?

If does, can nimiita of reality comparing with patibhaaga- nimitta in Samantha’s development?

Nimitta can in understanding the different meaning.

Huongthuong

Encouraged by Ontheway I add some more.
The ayatanas are the meeting place of dhammas. It is almost incredible that a moment of seeing, for instance, can arise - as so many supporting conditions must be present. And then that moment of seeing immediately vanishes .
From
Understanding Realities Now:
Nina’s travelogues
Nina van Gorkom:

We have to understand seeing and visible object. Time and again seeing arises and, thus, we should not be forgetful of the present reality. Some people may find seeing too ordinary to consider, not interesting enough. But it arises because of the coming together of different factors. Visible object and eye-base are rupas that have not fallen away yet. Rupa does not fall away as rapidly as nama.

There are conditions for them to associate exactly at the time they have not fallen away yet, so that kamma, a deed committed in the past, can produce seeing. We always took seeing for granted, but actually, it is amazing that seeing arises. Seeing experiences visible object and only for that extremely short moment the world is bright. When seeing has fallen away other cittas succeed seeing in the eye-door process which, although they do not see, still experience visible object, but the world is no longer bright.

It seems that when we notice persons on account of what has been seen, that the world is still bright, but this is not so. We are thinking and, although our eyes are open, the world is dark. Thinking and other experiences are interspersed with moments of seeing visible object very rapidly, and it seems that we are seeing all the time.

However, the moment of seeing is extremely short, it arises and falls away.
Thus, in reality only one short moment is bright and all other moments are dark. Because of our ignorance we take phenomena for permanent and self. It seems that we see people and things and that whatever we see was there already for a long time and that the world keeps on being bright. In the beginning the momentary arising and falling away of realities, one at a time, cannot be realized.

Understanding has to be developed further so that impermanence can be directly penetrated. We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (IV, First Fifty, Ch 3, § 23, Helpful), that the Buddha said:
“ ‘I will show you a way, brethren, that is helpful for the uprooting of all conceits. Do you listen to it. And what, brethren is that way? Now what think you, brethren? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?’ 357 ‘Impermanent, lord.’ ‘What is impermanent, is that weal or woe?’ ‘Woe, lord.’ ‘Now what is impermanent, woeful, by nature changeable, – is it fitting to regard that as: This is mine. This am I. This is myself?’ ‘Surely not, lord.’ ”

The Buddha then explained the same about the other sense-doors, the objects experienced through them, and the cittas that experience these objects. He said that the person who realizes the truth attains arahatship and eradicates conceit.
[/quote]

10

Dear Robert

The word “ bright” when “ seeing is experiencing the extremely visible object Preformatted text[quote=“huongthuong, post:9, topic:715, full:true”]
Dear Robert

What do you reckon the word
“ bright” of “

From

Understanding Realities Now:
Nina’s travelogues
Nina van Gorkom:
Seeing experiences visible object and only for that extremely short moment the world is bright.

When seeing has fallen away other cittas succeed seeing in the eye-door process which, although they do not see, still experience visible object, but the world is no longer bright.

11

Dear Houng
here Nina is explaining that only that extremely brief instant of seeing- cakkhavinnana- when the visible object(colour) is experienced is there light/brightness/colour. All other moments- hearing, tasting, thinking etc are all completely without any light or colour.

It makes us think doesn’t it. The world, when our eyes are open, seems full of colour continually . This is because of the rapidity of the rise and fall - the seeing consciousness repeately arises and thus this continuity gives a sense of permanence, when in fact there are only fleeting moments.

1 Like
12

Try this topic Huongthuong

Nimitta does mean ‘sign’ but of course sign of reality and sign in samattha development are different.

1 Like
13

Dear Robert

14

Dear Robert

Thanks for explaining and giving more information Dhamma

15

Dear Robert
Thanks for explaining and giving more detail from Nina written about Dhamma as the five aggregates, ayatana.

However, I’m still not clear or doubt the word bright or colour… of visible object.I might bring up this topic to DSG
Huong

16

kupdf.net_the-dispeller-of-delusionsammohavinodanipart-1nanamoli1987_1 69-82.pdf (6.2 MB)
I uploaded this chapter from the dispeller of delusion on ayatanas

1 Like