Self, ’’I’’ and ’’mine’’, ego and BIG ME. – The root of all evil in the world

The 'papañca' which taints the world­ling's concept of his indivi­duality is none other than the notion of an ego […] ('asmīti bhik­khave papañ­citaṁ'). This wrong notion is said to be the root of all sickness within the indi­vidual and out in the society. The diseases in the case of the indi­vidual are lust (rāga), hatred (dosa) and delusion (moha), while some of their symp­tomatic manifes­tations in the society are quarrels (kalaha), strife (viggaha), dispute (vivāda), conceit (mānāti­māna), slander (pesuñña), jealousy and avarice (issāmac­chariya). The relevance of 'papañca' to an analysis of the indivi­dual and social sickness referred to above is amply illustra­ted in suttas like Madhu­piṇḍika, Sakka­pañha and Kalaha­vivāda.

Bhikkhu Kaṭu­kurunde Ñāṇa­nanda: Concept and Reality in Early Bud­dhist Thought. An Essay on Papañca and Papañca-Saññā-Saṅkhā. Publ. by Poth­gulgala Dharma­grantha Dharma­sravana Mādhya Bhāraya. Rev. ed. 2012, pp. 33f. (Origi­nally published by the Bud­dhist Publica­tion Society: Kandy, ¹1971).

Prologue: Rangoon, Burma, July 2004 –

My first meditation retreat – a very intensive, Mahāsī-style one at that! – at Chanmyay Yeiktha, Rangoon, Burma. Three weeks. Formal medita­tion consisting of (1) walking practice (caṅkama) and (2) sitting practice, alternat­ingly. In between: aware­ness of all daily activi­ties (DA), following the Buddha’s guidance from the Satipaṭ­ṭhāna Sutta, trying to establish moment-to-moment mind­fulness, sati, round the clock!

The maximum I could spend on formal practice (see above) totalled 11 and a half hours on a single day.

The whole retreat seemed to be an endless struggle. There were days with sati, and there were days with no trace of sati at all. Nobody told me that sati, too, has the nature to arise, to be there, and then to disappear. Aniccaṁ. Nobody called my atten­tion to it. Then and there.

And then, one day, I suddenly realised that I am my worst enemy, and that it was me, towards whom I had the least patience! That means, the enemy was – and still is – in me, in here, within. It mani­fested itself as power­ful and stub­born resis­tance.

This resis­tance is one of the main obsta­cles we encounter – not only during formal medita­tion practice, but in our daily lives as well.

▲

(Vesakh Day 2023, 5 May, after­noon talk given at Sri Bodhi­malu Vihā­raya, Pilessa, Sri Lanka.)

Without any hesitation, I asked those of the large audience present who had admit­tedly practised medita­tion what the reason was that they were not (yet) enlight­ened.

It became clear that there was some­thing, such as distur­bances, or thinking, which blocked their practice.

This ”some­thing” is the same as the enemy within I had perceived myself during my first retreat. There was some­thing in the mind, there was a con­sensus, which was an obstacle to practice. This some­thing is there as soon as one sits down and closes their eyes, some­thing which is against any letting go – which opposes letting go –, relin­quish­ing, renun­ciation. All in all, some­thing which is in the way.

Ajahn Brahm puts it this way:

Meditation is a natural process of coming to rest, and it requires you to get out of the way completely.

Ajahn Brahm: Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Medita­tor’s Hand­book. Boston: Wisdom Publica­tions, 2006, p. 23.

Let’s see what the Burmese medita­tion teacher Saya­daw U Jotika has to say in this regard:

Many people ask what to do when medi­tating. Just pay atten­tion!
But most people are surprised by the answer. They think they have to do some­thing, they have to create some­thing. Doing is some­thing we do in our daily life. But when we meditate we don’t do anything at all. We just pay atten­tion. It is so simple that it is so hard for people to do, just because it is so simple. We have the habit of making things so compli­cated. When we try to do some­thing the ego is in the way. You cannot do that in medita­tion. Get your­self out of the way and let medita­tion happen; no ego, not doing anything, just paying complete atten­tion; this is very important.

Sayadaw U Jotika: A Map of the Journey, 2005, pp. 372f.

Here we are! One: ”When we try to do some­thing the ego is in the way.” – Two: ”Get your­self out of the way and let medita­tion happen […]”

Yes, it is the ego which is in the way. මමත්වය. And I prefer to call it BIG ME, in English, regard­less of the lan­guage I happen to use to speak about it. Well, for the sake of Sinhala speakers, I am happy to use the Sinhala term as well!

’Ego’ actually means ”I”, and is a loan­word from Latin / Greek: ”by 1707, in meta­physics, the self; that which feels, acts, or thinks, from Latin ego ”I” […].” – And: ”Psycho­analytic (Freudi­an) sense is from 1894; sense of ’conceit’ is 1891.” (Source: Online Etymology Dictionary, ego.)

ego noun
your idea or opinion of yourself, espe­cially your feeling of your own impor­tance and ability (Cambridge Dictionary online)

self noun
2: the union of elements (such as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensa­tions) that consti­tute the indivi­duality and identity of a person (Merriam-Webster online)

I came across a blog, Path­way to Happi­ness. I have selected a few trains of thought in order to present some ideas, such as the one accept­ed by Western psychol­ogy, namely that the ego is but a construc­tion. The very last sentence I have copied reminds one of the Bud­dhist approach: letting go of what is causing you unhap­piness! – Source: https://pathwaytohappiness.com/blog/what-is-the-ego/

What is Ego?
The ego is the mind’s identity of our own con­struc­tion, an identity that is false. […]

The Ego Unmasked
Why is it so hard to explain or describe?
The ego is difficult to define because the ego isn’t one specific thing. It is actually made up of many different beliefs that a person acquires over their life. Those beliefs can be diverse and even contra­dictory. To further compli­cate it, each person’s ego is different. […]

How to Spot the Ego
It can be difficult to see, because it hides behind opinions that appear true – our attach­ment to the descrip­tions of our identity – and because we haven’t practiced looking.

[…] The easier way to spot the ego is by the trail of emo­tional reactions it leaves behind […].

“Having an ego” is usually asso­ciated with arro­gance and is a term used to describe some­one who thinks they are better than others. […]

Letting Go of the Ego
Because of its multiple aspects, it’s not prac­tical or effective to dis­solve all of it at once, nor is it likely that you could do so.

Much like a tree or large bush that is over­grown in the yard, you don’t just lift it out and throw it away – you cut off manage­able pieces instead. The same approach is effective with letting go of the false beliefs that make up the ego. You begin by detach­ing from indivi­dual thoughts that reinforce it, then let go of beliefs, separat­ing your­self from the false identity of your ego.

We have spent years building our ego self-images, living inside of them, and reinforc­ing them. Extracting our genuine self out of this matrix of false beliefs will take more than a few days. Yes, it will take a while… so what. It also took a while to learn to read, do math, walk, and develop profi­ciency at any valuable skill. Things worth doing take time and practice. What better thing do you have to do than let go of what is causing you unhap­piness?

In this last para­graph quoted above, there is mention of ”our genuine self”. It sounds pretty innocent and harmless, whereas it is not. Based on above premises, there is a ”genuine self” some­where in us, within, a captive ”of this matrix of false beliefs” out of which it is to be ”extracted”. Ego as opposed to a ”genuine self,” but what should this ”genuine self” be like? Further, does all this imply that there is an ”evil” (and, conse­quently, undesir­able) self called (or label­led) the ego, and there is a ”good” (and, conse­quently, desir­able) self, which is sup­posed to be ”our genuine self”? Is it, perhaps, ”our better self,” help­lessly drift­ing towards the other extreme – Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde revisited?

Whatever the case, there still lurks a ”self,” genuine or not, the very notion of a self, attā, and as soon as there is a ”self,” there will be craving, conceit and (wrong) views.

Further, the ques­tion is how to ”secure” happi­ness once ”our genuine self” is ”extracted,” as this genuine self is no guar­antee of happi­ness at all. Views about a self, belief in a self – and attach­ment to them –, namely, are rather the source of unhap­piness than happiness.

▲

Sakkāya — sakkāya­diṭṭhi

In the Cūḷa­vedalla­sutta, the lay follower Visākha ques­tions Lady Dhamma­dinnā, an enlight­ened bhik­khunī about diverse topics. The first one con­cerns sakkāya – ’the body in being; embodi­ment’ –, that is, identity.

Ime kho, āvuso visākha, pañc­upādā­nak­khandhā sakkāyo vutto bhaga­vatā’’ti.
These five aggre­gates affected by clinging are called identity by the Blessed One.

MN 44 | Cūḷa­vedalla­sutta; The Middle Length Dis­courses of the Buddha. A Trans­lation of the Maj­jhima Nikāya. Trans­lated from the Pāli. Origi­nal trans­lation by Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli. Transla­tion edited and revised by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Third Edition. Boston: Wisdom Publica­tions, 2005 (¹1995). – MN 44: The Shorter Series of Ques­tions and Answers, p. 396.

Next, the lay follower would like to know what is called the origin of identity by the Buddha:

‘‘sakkāya­samudayo sakkāya­samu­dayo’ti, ayye, vuccati. Katamo nu kho, ayye, sakkāya­samu­dayo vutto bhaga­vatā’’ti? ‘‘Yāyaṁ, āvuso visākha, taṇhā ponob­bhavikā nandī­rāga­saha­gatā tatra­tatrā­bhinan­dinī, seyya­thidaṁ – kāma­taṇhā bhava­taṇhā vibhava­taṇhā; ayaṁ kho, āvuso visākha, sakkāya­samu­dayo vutto bhaga­vatā’’ti.

It is taṇhā, craving. Bhik­khunī Dhamma­dinnā offers the expla­nation we know so well from the first discourse of the Buddha, Dhamma­cakkap­pavat­tana­sutta (SN 56:11).

A little bit later, Visākha in­quires how iden­tity / person­ality view – sakkāya­diṭṭhi – comes to be: Kathaṁ pan­āyye, sak­kāya­diṭṭhi hotī’’ti? – Bhik­khunī Dhamma­dinnā tells him the following:

‘‘Idhā­vuso visākha, assu­tavā puthuj­jano, ariyā­naṁ adas­sāvī ariya­dham­massa ako­vido ariya­dhamme avi­nīto, sap­purisā­naṁ adas­sāvī sap­purisa­dham­massa ako­vido sap­purisa­dhamme avinīto, rūpaṁ attato sama­nupas­sati, rūpa­vantaṁ vā attā­naṁ, attani vā rūpaṁ, rūpas­miṁ vā attā­naṁ. Veda­naṁ…pe… saññaṁ… saṅ­khāre… viññā­ṇaṁ attato sama­nupas­sati, viñ­ñāṇa­van­taṁ vā attā­naṁ, attani vā viññā­ṇaṁ, viññā­ṇas­miṁ vā attā­naṁ. Evaṁ kho, āvuso visākha, sak­kāya­diṭṭhi hotī’’ti.

(1) rūpaṁ attato sama­nupas­sati ’… regards material form as self’,

(2) rūpa­vantaṁ vā attā­naṁ ’or self as posses­sed of material form’,

(3) attani vā rūpaṁ ’or material form as in self’,

(4) rūpas­miṁ vā attā­naṁ ’or self in material form’,

… and regards vedanā (feeling), saññā (percep­tion), saṅ­khārā (forma­tions) and viñ­ñāṇa (con­scious­ness) alike [(1) to (4)], coming to a total of 20 types of person­ality (iden­tity) view (belief), namely four basic modes of iden­tity view in regard of each of the five aggre­gates (khandha).

▲

Strong attach­ment to a sense of ‘me’ and ‘mine’

”This attach­ment to a sense of self provides a core focus for Dhamma practice: it must be attended to cor­rectly and many teach­ings address this issue. Many unique terms and expres­sions are used to designate this form of attach­ment. Following is a summary of such terms and expres­sions, organized into groups:

Group 1: etaṁ mama (= taṇhā), eso­ham­asmi (= asmi­māna), eso me attā’ti (= diṭṭhi): ‘this is mine, I am this, this is my self.’

Group 2: ahanti (= eso me attā) vā ma­manti (= etaṁ mama) vā asmīti (= eso­hama­smi) vā: ‘(the belief in) “I”, (the belief in) “mine”, and (the belief), “I exist”.’ (See MN 28: Mahāhatthipadopamasutta.)

Group 3: ahaṅkāra (= eso me attā) mamaṅkāra (= etaṁ mama) manānusaya (= eso­ham­asmi): ‘(the belief in) “I”, (the belief in) “mine”, and an under­lying ten­dency of conceit.’ – ”I-making by views, mine-making by craving, and the under­lying ten­dency to conceit”, in: The Numeri­cal Dis­courses of the Buddha. A Transla­tion of the Aṅgut­tara Nikāya. Trans­lated from the Pāli by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Boston: Wisdom Publica­tions, 2012. – AN 3:32 | Ānanda, pp. 228f, 1639, n. 366.

Group 4: mamā­yita – or: ma­matta, lit. ”mine-ness,” ’egotism, posses­sive­ness’ – an attach­ment as ’mine’ (= etaṁ mama) and asmi­māna: the belief in “mine”, (‘the belief in “I”), and the conceit “I am”.’

Group 5: attā, atta­niya, (and asmīti): the self, things asso­ciated with the self, (and the belief ‘I exist’). – cp. ”empty of self and of what belongs to self”, suñ­ñaṁ attena vā atta­niyena vā:

SN 35:85 | 9. Channa­vagga
85. Suññata­loka­sutta

Atha kho āyasmā ānando … pe … bhaga­van­taṁ etad­avoca: “‘Suñño loko, suñño loko’ti, bhante, vuccati. Kittā­vatā nu kho, bhante, suñño lokoti vuccatī”ti?

“Yasmā ca kho, ānanda, suññaṁ attena vā atta­niyena vā tasmā suñño lokoti vuc­cati. Kiñca, ānanda, suññaṁ attena vā atta­niyena vā? Cakkhu kho, ānanda, suññaṁ attena vā atta­niye­na vā. Rūpā suññā attena vā atta­niyena vā, cak­khu­viññā­ṇaṁ suññaṁ attena vā atta­niyena vā, cak­khu­sam­phasso suñño attena vā atta­niyena vā … pe … yam­pidaṁ mano­sam­phassa­pacca­yā uppaj­jati veda­yitaṁ sukhaṁ vā duk­khaṁ vā aduk­kham­asu­khaṁ vā tampi suññaṁ attena vā atta­niyena vā. Yasmā ca kho, ānanda, suññaṁ attena vā atta­niyena vā, tasmā suñño lokoti vuccatī”ti.

85 (2) Empty Is the World
Then the Vener­able Ānanda ap­proached the Blessed One … and said to him: “Vener­able sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’ In what way, vener­able sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?”

“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’ And what is empty of self and of what belongs to self? The eye, Ānanda, is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-con­scious­ness is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self…. What­ever feeling arises with mind-contact as condi­tion—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is empty of self and of what belongs to self. “It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’”

Bhikkhu Bodhi. The Con­nected Dis­courses of the Buddha: A New Transla­tion of the Saṁ­yutta Nikaya (Kindle Loca­tions 21382-21390). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

Group 6: taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi: craving, conceit, and fixed views.

Based on: Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto (Somdet Phra Buddha­ghosa­cariya): Buddha­dhamma. The Laws of Nature and Their Bene­fits to Life. Transla­ted by Robin Philip Moore. Bangkok: Buddha­dhamma Founda­tion, not dated – e-book: 2019.; pp. 323ff.;
Buddhadhamma - Buddhadhamma

Thus etaṁ mama is kāma­taṇhā, eso­ham­asmi is bhava­taṇhā (= māna), and eso me attā is diṭṭhi. (NB. vs. n’etaṁ mama – neso­ham­asmi – na meso attā.)

”When there is the delu­sion of self, there will always be craving. Craving is how the delu­sion expres­ses itself.” – Ajahn Brahm: Mindful­ness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Medita­tor’s Hand­book. Boston: Wisdom Publica­tions, 2006, p. 200.

▲

’I am’ occurs

”It is by clinging, Ānanda, that [the notion] of ’I am’ occurs, not with­out clinging. And by clinging to what does ’I am’ occur, not with­out clinging? It is by clinging to form (rūpa) that ’I am’ occurs, not with­out clinging. It is by clinging to feeling (vedanā) … per­cep­tion (saññā) … voli­tional forma­tions (saṅ­khārā) … con­scious­ness (viñ­ñāṇa) that ’I am’ occurs, not with­out clinging.”

The Con­nected Dis­courses of the Buddha. A New Trans­lation of the Saṁ­yutta Nikāya. Transla­ted from the Pāli by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Boston: Wisdom Publica­tions, 2000. – SN 22:83 | Ānanda = Ānandasutta, pp. 928f.

… upādāya, āvuso Ānanda, asmīti hoti, no anupā­dāya: that is, cling­ing in depen­dence of the five khandha. The five khandha give rise to the notion ’I am.’ – ’I am’ is a mani­festa­tion of craving and conceit, cf.: … asmīti taṇhā­māna­diṭṭhi­saṅkhā­taṁ papañ­catta­yaṁ aviga­tam­eva hoti.

”Thus behind the data of sense-experi­ence condi­tion­ally arisen, there looms large the illu­sion of an ego as the agent. It is the root of pa­pañca-saññā-saṅkhā, and its era­dica­tion, the aim of the spiri­tual train­ing in Bud­dhism.”

Bhikkhu Kaṭu­kurunde Ñāṇa­nanda: Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought, p. 32.

As long as the idea / view / notion / illusion / delu­sion of a self – the belief in a self – prevails, there will be craving and conceit.

Then the late Ven. K. Ñāṇa­nanda continues:

The eradica­tion of the illusion of an ego has to be accom­plished through pene­tra­tive wisdom focus­sed on one's own person­ality. He has to analyse the mental and corpo­real consti­tuents of his indivi­duality and see them in their correct pen­etra­tive, as being imper­manent (anicca), fraught with suf­fering (dukkha) and not his own (anattā). He has to bring about a total trans­forma­tion of his con­cept of indivi­duality which is charac­terised by 'papañca'. […]

The 'papañca' which taints the world­ling's concept of his indivi­duality is none other than the notion of an ego […] ('asmīti bhik­khave papañ­citaṁ'). This wrong notion is said to be the root of all sick­ness within the indivi­dual and out in the society. The diseases in the case of the indivi­dual are lust (rāga), hatred (dosa) and delu­sion (moha), while some of their symp­tomatic mani­festa­tions in the society are quar­rels (kalaha), strife (vig­gaha), dispute (vivāda), conceit (mānā­timāna), slander (pesuñ­ña), jealousy and avarice (issā­maccha­riya). The rele­vance of 'pa­pañca' to an analysis of the indivi­dual and social sickness referred to above is amply illustrated in suttas like Madhu­piṇḍika, Sakka­pañha and Kalaha­vivāda. – Op. cit., pp. 33f.

Feeling

In the Mahā­nidāna­sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya – ’The Great Dis­course on Origi­nation’ (DN 15) – the Buddha asks Ānanda:

‘‘Kittā­vatā ca, ānanda, attā­naṁ sama­nupas­samāno sama­nupas­sati? Veda­naṁ vā hi, ānanda, attā­naṁ sama­nupas­samāno sama­nupas­sati – ‘vedanā me attā’ti.

’In what ways, Ānanda, do people regard the self? They equate the self with feeling: ”Feeling is my self” […].

”Tatrā­nanda, yo so evam­āha – ‘vedanā me attā’ti, so evam­assa vaca­nīyo – ‘tisso kho imā, āvuso, vedanā – sukhā vedanā dukkhā vedanā aduk­kham­asukhā vedanā. Imā­saṁ kho tvaṁ tissan­naṁ veda­nānaṁ kata­maṁ attato sama­nupas­sasī’ti?

’Now, Ānanda, one who says: ”Feeling is my self” should be told: ”There are three kinds of feeling, friend: pleasant, painful, and neutral. Which of the three do you consider to be your self?” […]

‘‘Tatrā­nanda, yo so evam­āha – ‘na heva kho me vedanā attā, appaṭi­saṁve­dano me attā’ti, so evam­assa vaca­nīyo – ‘yattha panā­vuso, sabbaso veda­yitaṁ natthi api nu kho, tattha ‘‘aya0­maham­asmī’’ti siyā’’’ti? ‘‘No hetaṁ, bhante’’.

”If, friend, no feelings at all were to be experi­enced, would there be the thought: ’I am’?” ”No, Lord.” […]

The Long Dis­courses of the Buddha. A Trans­lation of the Dīgha Nikāya. Trans­lated from the Pāli by Maurice Walshe. Somer­ville, MA: Wisdom Publica­tions, 1987, pp. 226f.

Ven. K. Ñāṇa­nanda:

It is through feeling that the notion of self awakens.

Bhikkhu Kaṭu­kurunde Ñāṇa­nanda: The Law of Depen­dent Arising (Paṭicca Samup­pāda). The Secret of Bondage and Release. Library Edition. Dammulla, Karan­dana: Kaṭu­kurunde Ñāṇa­nanda Sada­ham Sena­sun Bhāraya, 2016, pp. 18f.

In the Samanu­passa­nāsutta of the Saṁ­yutta Nikāya – ’Ways of Regard­ing Things’ (SN 22:47) – the Buddha speaks, among others, ignor­ance-contact and the birth of a feeling:

Atthi, bhik­khave, mano, atthi dhammā, atthi avij­jādhātu. Avijjā­sam­phassa­jena, bhik­khave, veda­yitena phuṭ­ṭhassa assu­tavato puthuj­janassa ‘asmī’ti­pissa hoti; ‘ayam­aham­asmī’ti­pissa hoti […]
Tassa avijjā­virāgā vijjup­pādā ‘asmī’ti­pissa na hoti; ‘ayam­aham­asmī’ti­pissa na hoti […].

There is, bhikkhus, the mind, there are mental phe­nom­ena, there is the ele­ment of ignor­ance. When the unin­structed world­ling is con­tacted by a feeling born of ignor­ance-contact, ’I am’ occurs to him; ’I am this’ occurs to him […].
With the fading away of ignor­ance and the arising of true knowl­edge, ’I am’ does not occur to him; ’I am this’ does not occur to him […]. – The Con­nected Dis­courses of the Buddha, p. 886.

This is how the late Ven. Buddha­dāsa Bhikkhu of Thai­land reflects on the arising of the ”ego”:

In Dhamma lan­guage [scil. as op­posed to every­day lan­guage], the word ”birth”* refers to the birth of the idea ”I” or ”ego” that arises in the mind through­out each day. Each arising in the mind of the idea of ”I” in one form or another is called a ”birth.” Thus, birth can take place many times over in a single day. […]

In his descrip­tion of condi­tioned arising, he [scil. the Buddha] wasn’t talking about physical birth*. He was talking about the birth* of attach­ment to the ideas of ”me” and ”mine,” ”myself” and ”my own.”
*In all instances: jāti.

Buddha­dāsa Bhikkhu: Key to Natural Truth. Various trans­lators. Bankok: The Dhamma Study & Practice Group, 1989, pp. 29f.

Needless to say, the word ”death” (ma­raṇa) in Dhamma lan­guage refers, then, to the cessa­tion of the idea of ”I” or ”me.” (Op. cit., p. 30.)

The Most Vener­able P. A. Payutto of Thai­land offers, as a preli­minary, this concise defini­tion for the eleventh factor of Depen­dent Arising (Paṭic­casam­uppāda) in his monu­mental hand­book Buddha­dhamma cited above:

11. Jāti: the birth of a ‘self’ that embodies the state of existence and interacts with the world. This ‘self’ claims owner­ship and control of proceedings. (p. 333.)

▲

Identifi­cation
හඳුනා ගැනීම

Ajahn Jayasaro, a well-known English teacher of the Thai forest tradi­tion, writes, among others, the following in connec­tion with the sense of self:

What is the meaning of not-self?

The unenlight­ened person assumes that there is a perma­nent inde­pendent entity behind our experi­ence, and that this entity is our self, who we really are. We take for granted that this ”me” is the one who sees, who thinks, who feels, who hears, who talks, who acts. The Buddha taught that this under­standing of who we are is mistaken, based upon certain funda­mental mis­per­cep­tions, and is the root cause of human suffering.

Buddhism teaches that far from being the solid centre of experi­ence, the sense of self is created moment by moment, by means of an instinc­tive identi­fication with aspects of experi­ence — our body, feelings, percep­tions, thoughts, emotions, sense-con­scious­ness. The Buddha encour­aged us to look more closely at our experi­ence in order to see if we can discover this self that seems so ob­viously to exist. Recogniz­ing that life is a flow of phenom­ena, depen­dent on causes and condi­tions, but with­out an owner or control­ler, is the insight into ’not-self’ or anattā.

Ajahn Jayasaro: Without and Within. Ques­tions and Answers on the Teach­ings of Therav­āda Buddhism. PDF; p. 92.

There is ”identifi­cation [with aspects of experi­ence]”, tam­mayatā, the op­posite of which is atam­maya­tā, ’non-identi­fication.’ In other words, ”imagi­nings* or methink­ings by way of craving, conceit and views lead to an identi­fication.” – See: K. Ñāṇa­nanda: Nibbāna – The Mind Stilled. Library Edition. Poth­gulgala Dharma­grantha Dharma­sravana Mādhya Bhāraya, 2015, p. 319. – *’imagi­nings’ = maññanā.

Once the mind is liber­ated ”from imagi­nings,” one attains ”the state of non-identifi­cation, atam­maya­tā, or ara­hant-hood.” (Op. cit., p. 323.) That is, ”atam­maya­tā or non-identi­fica­tion is the path to Nibbāna” (p. 641.).

In our last sermon we brought up the term tam­maya­tā. When one starts imagin­ing in such terms about some­thing, one tends to become one with it, tam­mayo, even as things made out of gold and silver are called golden, su­vaṇṇa­maya, and silvery, rajata­maya. It is as if one who grasps a gem becomes its owner and if any­thing happens to the gem he is affected by it. To possess a gem is to be posses­sed by it.

When one gets attached and becomes involved and en­tangled in the seen through craving, conceit and views, by imagi­ning egoisti­cally, the result is identifi­cation, tamma­yatā, literally "of-that-ness". (p. 326.)

And, later:

Because the aim of this holy life or this path of practice is non­grasping instead of grasp­ing; non-identifi­cation, atam­mayatā, instead of identifi­cation, tamma­yatā; asset­less­ness, niru­padhi, instead of assets, upadhi. (p. 655.)

හඳුනා නොගැනීම – atam­mayatā, ’non-identifi­cation’.

In a short sutta – Atam­maya­sutta – of the Aṅgut­tara Nikāya the Buddha speaks to his monks about ”the bene­fits of estab­lishing un­limited percep­tion of non-self in all phenom­ena”:

“Cha, bhikkhave, āni­saṁse sam­passa­mānena alam­eva bhik­khunā sabba­dham­mesu ano­dhiṁ karitvā anatta­saññaṁ upaṭ­ṭhāpe­tuṁ. Katame cha? Sabba­loke ca atam­mayo bhavis­sāmi, ahaṅ­kārā ca me upa­rujjhis­santi, mamaṅ­kārā ca me upa­rujjhis­santi, asā­dhāra­ṇena ca ñāṇena saman­nāgato bhavis­sāmi, hetu ca me sudiṭ­ṭho bhavis­sati, hetu­samup­pannā ca dhammā. Ime kho, bhik­khave, cha āni­saṁse sam­passa­mānena alam­eva bhik­khunā sabba­dham­mesu ano­dhiṁ karitvā anatta­saññaṁ upaṭ­ṭhāpetun”ti.

104 (9) Without Identifi­cation
”Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu considers six bene­fits, it is enough for him to establish the un­limited percep­tion of non-self in all phenom­ena. What six? (1) ’I will be with­out identifi­cation in the entire world. (2) I-makings will cease for me. (3) Mine-makings will cease for me. (4) I will come to possess knowl­edge not shared [with world­lings]. (5) I will have clearly seen causa­tion. And (6) I will have clearly seen causally arisen phenomena.’

”Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu considers these six benefits, it is enough for him to establish the un­limited percep­tion of non-self in all phenomena.”

The Numerical Dis­courses of the Buddha, p. 984. – AN 6:104 | Without Identifi­cation.

And, according to the explana­tion of the com­mentary (Mano­ratha­pūraṇī):

Ahaṁ­kārā’ti ahaṁ­kāra­diṭṭhi. Mamaṁ­kārā’ti mamaṁ­kāra­taṇhā. – 9. Atam­maya­sutta­vaṇ­ṇanā.

Which means, ’I-makings’ is views, and ’mine-makings’ is craving.

▲

BIG ME

What makes up BIG ME? – Is there a way to define BIG ME?

It is BIG, because it is bloated, inflated, and appears, there­fore, over-sized, filling the whole cosmos! And, indeed, they tend to occupy much more space than others in general, for example in medita­tion centres: they erect a whole fortress of cushions and all kinds of support around them­selves. They are inconsi­derate in other regards as well, as if loudly claiming all the time, ”ME, ME, ME!” – hence the designa­tion. BIG ME is ego-centric / selfish, only inter­ested in what brings benefit and advan­tages to them­selves.

One could write books recounting per­sonal experi­ences in all kinds of com­munities. Monas­tic com­munities – medita­tion centres included – are not im­mune either. Humans are made of humans. Monks are no excep­tion; they, too, are mostly made of humans.

Defilements of the mind: kilesa

And humans are composed of their mental defile­ments (kilesa) of which there are various listings and accounts in the Dhamma, begin­ning with the three akusala­mūlāni, that is lobha, dosa, and moha, the most basic and most power­ful of the defile­ments. Then we have the so-called dasa-kilesa-vatthu: the afore­men­tioned three, followed by (4) māna, (5) diṭṭhi, (6) vici­kicchā, (7) thīna, (8) ud­dhacca, (9) ahirika, and, lastly, (10) anot­tappa.

A catalogue of fourteen items comes next in the system of the Abhi­dhamma, they are listed under the heading akusala cetasika, presented in four groups (A. to D.):

A.
1. moha, 2. ahirika, 3. anot­tappa, 4. uddhacca — these are called moha-catukka ’the quartet of moha’; here moha takes the lead;

B.
5. lobha, 6. diṭṭhi, 7. māna — these are referred to as lobha-trī ’the triad of lobha’; here lobha is the leader;

C.
8. dosa, 9. issā, 10. mac­chariya, 11. kukkucca — these are called dosa-catukka, where dosa takes the lead;

D.
12. thīna, 13. middha, 14. vicikicchā — these are called thīna-trī, where thīna is the leader.

Ten are already known; numbers 9., 10., 11. and 13. are introduced here.

According to the Vatthū­pama­sutta of the Maj­jhima Nikāya (MN 7), there are sixteen moral imper­fections which defile the mind, the so-called impuri­ties of the mind, cit­tassa upak­kilesā. In con­nection with medita­tion practice, anyhow, the upak­kilesas refer to imperfec­tions of the mind. The sixteen cit­tassa upak­kilesā are as follows:

(1) abhijjhā-visama­lobha, (2) vyāpāda, (3) kodha, (4) upa­nāha, (5) makkha, (6) paḷāsa, (7) issā, (8) mac­chariya, (9) māyā, (10) sāṭhey­ya, (11) thamba, (12) sāram­bha, (13) māna, (14) ati­māna, (15) mada, and (16) pamāda.
(NB. Please refer to respec­tive English render­ings in the sutta.)

Not referred to as defile­ments proper, the Sallekha­sutta of the Maj­jhima Nikāya (MN 8) includes a list of forty-four items (!). Here is the conclu­sion of the Buddha at the end of the sutta:

‘‘Iti kho, cunda, desito mayā sallekha­pari­yāyo, desito cittup­pāda­pari­yāyo, desito parik­kamana­pari­yāyo, desito upari­bhāga­pari­yāyo, desito pari­nibbā­na­pariyāyo.

“So, Cunda, the way of efface­ment has been taught by me, the way of inclin­ing the mind has been taught by me, the way of avoid­ance has been taught by me, the way leading up­wards has been taught by me, and the way of extin­guish­ing has been taught by me.

Bhikkhu Bodhi; Bhikkhu Nana­moli. The Middle Length Dis­courses of the Buddha: A Transla­tion of the Maj­jhima Nikaya (Kindle Loca­tions 2256-2257). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

Each and every single indivi­dual is respon­sible for their mental defile­ments as well as their elimi­nation, that is, purifica­tion, see Dhamma­pada, V. 165:

Attanā’va kataṁ pāpaṁ —
attanā saṅ­kilis­sati.
Attanā aka­taṁ pāpaṁ —
attanā’va visuj­jhati.
Suddhi asud­dhi paccat­taṁ —
n’āñño aññaṁ viso­dhaye.

Distor­tions of the mind: vipal­lāsa

In the Vipal­lāsa­sutta of the Aṅgut­tara Nikāya (AN 4:49; pp. 437ff.) the Buddha expounds the distor­tions – also rendered as ’perver­sions’ / ’inver­sions’ – of the mind. Ajahn Brahm speaks of ’cogni­tive distor­tion.’ These are sañña­vipal­lāsa (of percep­tion), citta­vipal­lāsa (of thought), and diṭṭhi­vipal­lāsa (of view):

our views (diṭṭhi) fashion à
percep­tions (saññā) à
percep­tions fashion thoughts (citta) …

… thoughts fashions views … and so forth. These are the three levels of cogni­tion, see Ajahn Brahm, Mindful­ness, cited above, p. 236.

According to the Peṭa­kopa­desa­pāḷi, (1) the distor­tions of percep­tion increase the aku­sala­mūla of dosa, (2) those of thought increase the aku­sala­mūla of lobha, and (3) those of views increase the aku­sala­mūla of moha:

Tattha saññā­vipal­lāso dosaṁ aku­sala­mūlaṁ pavaḍ­ḍheti. Citta­vipal­lāso lobhaṁ aku­sala­mūlaṁ pavaḍ­ḍheti. Diṭṭhi­vipal­lāso mohaṁ aku­sala­mūlaṁ pavaḍ­ḍheti.

Peṭa­kopa­desa­pāḷi: 1. Ariya­saccap­pakā­sana­paṭha­ma­bhūmi.

There are four ways in which these inver­sions or distor­tions mani­fest them­selves:

Anicce nicca­sañ­ñino (1),
Perceiv­ing perma­nence in the imper­manent,
dukkhe ca sukha­sañ­ñino (2);
perceiv­ing pleasure in what is suffering,
Anat­tani ca attāti (3),
perceiv­ing a self in what is non-self,
asubhe subha­sañ­ñino (4);
and percei­ving attrac­tive­ness in what is un­attractive,
Micchā­diṭṭhi­gatā sattā,
beings resort to wrong views,
khitta­cittā visañ­ñino.
their minds de­ranged, their percep­tion twisted.

The Numerical Dis­courses of the Buddha, p. 438.

Beings resort to wrong views, their minds de­ranged, their percep­tion twisted. – Sounds very promis­ing indeed!

Two kinds of illness: bodily and mental

However, this is not all. The Buddha speaks about illness in the Roga­sutta – ’Illness’ – of the Aṅgut­tara Nikāya (AN 4:157; pp. 522f.):

“Dveme, bhik­khave, rogā. Katame dve? Kāyiko ca rogo ceta­siko ca rogo. Dissanti, bhik­khave, sattā kāyi­kena rogena ekampi vassaṁ āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jāna­mānā, dvepi vas­sāni āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jāna­mānā, tīṇipi vas­sāni āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jāna­mānā, cat­tāripi vas­sāni āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jāna­mānā, pañ­capi vas­sāni āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jāna­mānā, dasapi vas­sāni āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jāna­mānā, vīsa­tipi vas­sāni āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jāna­mānā, tiṁsa­mpi vas­sāni āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jāna­mānā, cat­tārī­sampi vassāni āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jāna­mānā, pañ­ñā­sampi vas­sāni āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jāna­mānā, vassa­satampi, bhiy­yopi āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jāna­mānā. Te, bhik­khave, sattā sudul­labhā lokas­miṁ ye ceta­sikena rogena muhut­tampi āro­gyaṁ paṭi­jānanti, añ­ñatra khīṇāsa­vehi.

"Bhikkhus, there are these two kinds of illness. Which two? Bodily illness and mental illness. People are found who can claim to enjoy bodily health for one, two, three, four, and five years; for ten, twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty years; and even for a hundred years and more. But apart from those whose taints have been destroyed, it is hard to find people in the world who can claim to enjoy mental health even for a moment.

(At https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/all-worldlings-are-mad/ , there is another rendering: But it’s very hard to find any sentient beings in the world who can claim to be free of mental illness even for a moment, apart from those who have ended the defile­ments. [Emphasis added by me. As far as I can judge, this render­ing conveys the idea of the Pāli original better.])

Let me repeat the last sentence in above para­graph: But apart from those whose taints have been destroyed, it is hard to find people in the world who can claim to enjoy mental health even for a moment. – ”… apart from those whose taints have been destroyed” is a necessa­rily para­phrase-like trans­lation of aññatra khīṇā­savehi, and refers to en­lighted beings, that is, ara­hants.

This is a devas­tating insight in its own right, but if one just recalls the find­ings of the Buddha under the heading (1) ’defile­ments of the mind’ along with his find­ings in con­nection with (2) ’cogni­tive distor­tion’, and then adds (3) the univer­sal lack of mental health in humans, the out­come is alarming: here you are, these are the very com­ponents – ingre­dients – of a human being as regards nāma, men­tality – in the sense of nāmak­khandhā, ’the aggre­gates of men­tality.’

BIG ME is blind. Being blinded, he is unable to see how mis­guided, deluded and stupid (mogha, from the same root as moha) he is. This is his blind spot. His own being mis­guided, deluded and stupid obstructs his realisa­tion of how mis­guided, de­luded and stupid he is. Actually, the same applies, among a great many other things, to his inabi­lity to under­stand that he is in the way of his own happiness.

This is a near-hope­less vicious cycle, as even if some­one is able to under­stand the nature and wor­kings of BIG ME at a theo­retical level, any attempt at the dis­mantling of BIG ME is doom­ed to fail on account of the very resis­tance of said BIG ME. BIG ME hates being lectured on BIG ME – as well as on his being mis­guided, de­luded and stupid –, and, as stated here above, thwarts all attempts at his dis­mantling / elimi­nation.

In addition to all those character­istics and traits of BIG ME presented and dis­cussed until now, prefer­ences – and, evi­dently, their opposite, namely aver­sion –, in other words, likes and dis­likes, or favour­ing and oppos­ing, etc., are a deter­mining feature of BIG ME. These prefer­ences go hand in hand with his reactions: ’”Favour­ing and op­posing” (anu­rodha­paṭi­virodha) means reacting with attrac­tion through lust and with aver­sion through hate.” – See note 168, p. 1195, to Cūḷa­sīha­nāda­sutta of the Maj­jhima Nikāya (MN 11; pp. 159–163).

The Pāli term paṭigha ’aver­sion’ has ’resis­tance’ as another conno­tation, and it is this resis­tance which results from the percep­tion of aversion or dislike. BIG ME resists every­thing which goes against his prefer­ences (favour­ings, likes, likings, etc.). One of the aids of dis­mantling BIG ME is exactly to scruti­nize and deci­sively work against them.

BIG ME prefers to do as he pleases, reck­lessly, with­out any consi­deration for others – and with­out any fear of the conse­quences: the beauti­ful traits of hiri and ottap­pa are unknown to him. Neither is BIG ME happy to show respect (gāra­va), and he has no clue of what humble­ness or modesty (nivāta) means. He simply does not care. This is his basic stance.

BIG ME doesn’t care about funda­mentals of the Teach­ing either. For them, there is no dāna, no sīla, and no bhāvanā. He indulges in his indivi­duality, blind towards the needs of others. Accord­ingly, he cannot under­stand what a com­munity is about, be it his own environ­ment or society at large, and often displays patterns of anti-social be­haviour. Capricious, and, yes, untrust­worthy and unreli­able: he doesn’t know sacca­pāramī. Unre­stricted and uncon­trolled – unman­age­able and incor­rigible. In the case of monks, it is also appro­priate to use the label ’unenlight­ened be­haviour.’ Such people don’t listen to any­body except for them­selves. It is not sur­prising then, that – unable to find happi­ness in it – they utterly shun the Dhamma.

I have once encoun­tered a 63 years old local Chinese monk with a huge ego in Malay­sia who had been ordained three years before. He shrieked ”I follow my ways!” at me when I gently tried to make him under­stand some­thing one morning. With all the local dāya­kas present. ”No,” I replied, ”if you are a Bud­dhist monk, you follow the Buddha’s way!” –

BIG ME even claims to know better than the Buddha did: this is how mogha­purisa, ’mis­guided, de­luded and stupid man,’ distorts and mis­repre­sents the words of the Buddha which inad­ver­tently leads to the decline of the true Dhamma, as ex­pounded in quite a few dis­courses. – See, for instance: Sad­dham­map­pati­rūpaka­sutta of the Kassapa­vagga, Saṁ­yutta Nikāya (SN 16:13).

▲

In 1979, Ajahn Chah visited North Ame­rica where he had a chance to meet members of the lay Bud­dhist com­munity. Ajahn Jaya­saro, who was cited earlier, writes the following in his indis­pens­able, monu­mental bio­graphy of Ajahn Chah:

DON’T LET THE THIEF IN

Luang Por had always presented the path of practice as one demanding an integrated approach in which the trainings of conduct, of the heart and of wisdom, as laid down by the Buddha, were to be seen as insepar­able parts of one whole. In Ame­rica, he found some­thing rather different. A new eclectic Bud­dhism was emerg­ing, one char­acter­ized by the quest for a distinctly Ame­rican Dhamma suited to the pre­vailing society and culture, and with­out any neces­sary adher­ence to tradi­tional Asian forms (often refer­red to as ’bag­gage’). The talk was of extracting the essence of all the different Bud­dhist tradi­tions that had found their way to America. Luang Por’s concern was, firstly, whether the leaders of the Bud­dhist com­munity were up to such a pro­found task, and secondly, that in a pick and mix ap­proach, the organic relation­ship between practices funda­mental to the Eight­fold Path could easily be over­looked. Further­more, adopting only those ele­ments of the tradi­tion that con­formed to a non-Buddhist society’s current views and values risked narrow­ing the tradition, or even distorting it.

[A Broader Canvas · 767]

Luang Por was particu­larly con­cerned to point out the vital con­nection between the practice of sīla and the more pro­found levels of inner culti­vation. He arrived in America with a reputa­tion as a great medita­tion master, and it was not only Paul who was sur­prised by how much time he devoted to talking about sīla. He asserted that when people com­mitted them­selves to medita­tion practices with­out a com­men­surable effort to purify their actions and speech, no lasting benefit would ensue. This was not the Thai Thera­vada view of things, he said, it was the law of nature. Sīla was the indis­pens­able founda­tion of practice. It was the funda­mental tool needed to build a noble life. It was the quality that made a human being a fitting vessel for the Dhamma.

Ajahn Jaya­saro: Still­ness Flowing. The Life and Teach­ings of Ajahn Chah. Panya­prateep Founda­tion, 2017, PDF: pp. 767–768. – Free down­load as a PDF: Stillness Flowing

As a pre­domi­nantly Protes­tant country since its incep­tion, America, unlike Europe, has few historical associa­tions with monas­ticism, and little sym­pathy with it. One of the topics on Bud­dhist lips at the time of Luang Por’s visit was the likeli­hood of Ame­rican Bud­dhism devel­oping as a pre­domi­nantly lay-based tradi­tion, and of that being a strength rather than a weakness.

(Ibid., p. 770.)

And, finally, I would like to include a very impor­tant passage from a very impor­tant book, to the atten­tion of all BIG ME’s active around Wiki­pedia-articles or any­thing pub­lished either in print or online, on Bud­dhism, the Dhamma, etc.

[…] But if the possibility of learning the lan­guages of Bud­dhism has dimin­ished, and if the teachers of Bud­dhism have not been able to gain an ade­quate philo­logical training in Bud­dhism, then I suspect that the situ­ation that pertains at the moment, where much of the work in the field of Bud­dhist studies is done by those who have not had an ade­quate philo­logical training in the lan­guages required, will con­tinue and will in fact get worse.

I suspect that what I have said in these lec­tures will have little effect upon some scholars, who would probably say that I am over­stating the need for philo­logical training. They would per­haps not describe them­selves as philo­logists, but would never­theless regard them­selves as suffi­ciently com­petent in philology to be able to handle all the textual material they need, because in their books and articles about Bud­dhism they do include Pāli and Sanskrit terms. This, how­ever, is not what I regard as philo­logy. Any work on Bud­dhism, which makes a claim to be based on ori­ginal lan­guage sources, will be worth­less unless it is based upon a full under­standing of those sources. This may appear to be stating the obvious, but it seems to me that much of what is alleged to be based on such sources is, in fact, not so based. Some of it seems to be based on trans­lations, with Pāli and Sanskrit equi­valents inserted in brackets, to give a veneer of scholarship.

Anyone who writes about Bud­dhism can sprinkle his article with Pāli and Sanskrit equi­valents, but this is not the same as knowing what the words mean, or why they mean it. I say “anyone can do it”, but this is not entirely true. I have read books, pub­lished recently, by teachers in recog­nised aca­demic insti­tutions, where the Pāli and Sanskrit words in brackets do not actually coincide with the English words which are sup­posed to be their trans­lation. Even if the authors have suc­ceeded in tracking down the cor­rect place on the page in the text, the way in which they quote the refer­ence, with com­pounds wrongly divided, or case forms mis­under­stood, makes it clear that some of them do not fully under­stand Pāli and Sanskrit.

Norman, K. R.: A philo­logical ap­proach to Bud­dhism. London: School of Ori­ental and African Studies, University of London, 1997. [= Bud­dhist Forum, Volume V: Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai Lectures 1994.] – Edition pub­lished in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005, 148. old.

▲

The Buddha was enlighted.
I am not.

If you just think about it: every­thing aims at the elimina­tion – dis­mantling – of BIG ME in the Dhamma­vinaya, simply because there is no libera­tion, no vimutti, with BIG ME.

To put it another way, nothing is easier than to become en­lighted. One thing, one thing alone is needed for our libera­tion, namely: BIG ME, this mis­guided, de­luded and stupid mogha­purisa in here must go.

5–22 May, 2023 • Yati­wala Sri Guna­war­dhanā­rāmaya • Hungar­ian Bhante Vilāsa Th.

Updated, with some addi­tions and minor correc­tions, 16 Septem­ber, 2023.

☸

 ▲