In a number of the books I'm reading on Buddhism, and in a number of talks I've heard on the subject, I repeatedly encounter the idea that the Buddha "saw the Dhamma" or that he "witnessed Dhamma" or the like. Other times, I've heard/read that the Buddha "saw" beings dying and taking rebirth, or that he "saw" the reality of anicca, dukkha, anatta, and the Four Noble Truths, etc. I'm having difficulty understanding what this all means. Is this metaphorical sight? Is it literal sight, in the sense of a vision or dream? In terms of our own meditation practices, when we are told that we should "see" certain things, e.g. seeing a nimitta, should we expect something similar? Metaphorical "sight"? Literal sight? Something else entirely? Thanks!

According to this law, every phenomenon owes its origin to another phenomenon prior to it. It may simply be expressed as “depending on this, this originates”. An example of Dependent Origination in nature is given below: There being clouds in the sky it rains. It having rained, the road becomes slippery. The road becoming slippery, a man falls down. The man having fallen down becomes injured. Here a shower of rain depends on the clouds in the sky. The road becoming slippery depends on the rain. The fall of the man depends on the road becoming slippery. The injury of the man depends upon his fall: Conversely: If there were no clouds in the sky, it would not have rained. Then the road would not have become slippery. Then the man would not have fallen. Then he would not have become injured. So this is understandable and clear to anyone. So can anyone explain (in simplified way)dependent origination step by step with practical examples?

What is the meaning of delusion ? and how it is different from lust , passion or greed ? What is the meaning of non-delusion ? and how it is different from no lust , no passion or no greed? And finally , how to get rid of delusion ?

When we see with an eye of Dhamma , we realise that that which has a beginning must have an end because birth is conditional. (I am using Bhikkhu Sujata’s translation of SN 35.74 ) If we reverse the Truth then is it true that that which has an end must have had a beginning? PS: To clarify , I share an example, suppose a candle light is put off then can we conclude that sometime in the past the candle was lit? It was not always burning.

From the Rooted Sutta (AN 10.58) we have the following paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Sujato. What does it mean? What are "things" or "phenomena" in this context? Please explain the whole paragraph. > ‘Reverends, all things are rooted in desire. Attention produces them. > Contact is their origin. Feeling is their meeting place. Immersion is > their chief. Mindfulness is their ruler. Wisdom is their overseer. > Freedom is their core. They culminate in the deathless. And > extinguishment is their final end.’ > > *‘chandamūlakā, āvuso, sabbe dhammā, manasikārasambhavā sabbe dhammā, > phassasamudayā sabbe dhammā, vedanāsamosaraṇā sabbe dhammā, > samādhippamukhā sabbe dhammā, satādhipateyyā sabbe dhammā, paññuttarā > sabbe dhammā, vimuttisārā sabbe dhammā, amatogadhā sabbe dhammā, > nibbānapariyosānā sabbe dhammā’ti.* The same paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi here : > “‘Friends, (1) all things are rooted in desire. (2) They come into > being through attention. (3) They originate from contact. (4) They > converge upon feeling. (5) They are headed by concentration. (6) > Mindfulness exercises authority over them. (7) Wisdom is their > supervisor. (8) Liberation is their core. (9) They culminate in the > deathless. (10) Their consummation is nibbāna.’ The same paragraph translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu here : > All phenomena are rooted in desire. > All phenomena come into play through attention. > All phenomena have contact as their origination. > All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place. > All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state. > All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle. > All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state. > All phenomena have release as their heartwood. > All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless. > All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.

Buddha says > So you should train like this: ‘I will not tell a lie, even for a > joke.’ Tasmātiha te, rāhula, ‘hassāpi na musā bhaṇissāmī’ti Dhamma as taught by Buddha is not a lie therefore one should not say things which contradict Buddha. However Buddha in [MN 22](https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin) asks to give up Dhamma. > By understanding the simile of the raft, you will even give up the > teachings, let alone what is against the teachings. > > Kullūpamaṁ vo, bhikkhave, dhammaṁ desitaṁ, ājānantehi dhammāpi vo > pahātabbā pageva adhammā. What is meant by giving up the teachings ? For example- How do you give up the teaching that Sabbbe Dhamma Anatta? or Sabbe Sankhara Anicca? or Sabbe Sankhara Dukkha?

Sabbe Sankhara Anicca means all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. However , I was thinking whether any phenomena can be present everywhere even for a short span of time ? In other words I think , no conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous because it will give a sense of temporary Self. One ubiquitous phenomena which comes to my mind is the presence of atom. Everything is made up of atoms except dark matter. Another ubiquitous phenomena is gravity. It seems to present everywhere.This is true for everything and everywhere. Is it true that no conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous? And what will be the Pali or Sanskrit translation for “No conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous.”? PS : I think Buddha didn’t say anything about it. However your thoughts are welcome. One reason I asked this question was because an ubiquitous phenomena gives at least a sense of temporary Self.

I asked a question which indirectly asked about Adhamma. However there was no direct refutation of Adhamma. So , I had to ask this question directly: Is there anything called as Adhamma in the Suttas ? In Sanskrit there is a word Adharma as opposite of dharma. > Adharma (Sanskrit: अधर्म) is derived from combining "a" with "dharma", > which literally implies "not-dharma". It means immoral, sinful, wrong, > wicked, unjust, unbalanced, or unnatural. Suppose I say forms are you or yours or yourself . Feelings are you or yours or yourself. Perceptions are you or yours or yourself. Choices are you or yours or yourself. Consciousness is you or yours or yourself. Then can the above observation or teaching be called Dhamma or Adhamma? I am asking this to clarify the meaning of Dhamma.

Adhamma word is used at few places in the Suttas . Adhamma is opposite of Dhamma. If Dhamma means Right then Adhamma means Wrong. There is a characteristic of existence: Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Can I say “ Sabbe Adhamma Anatta “? Does “ Sabbe Dhamma Anatta “ exclude Adhamma? If not then how do we reconcile?

There can be different kinds of reality. Reality as experienced by dogs, cats, elephants, lions, pigs, snakes, humans, gods, maras or reality as experienced in hell or reality as experienced in heaven or reality as experienced by water born animals or by birds etc., differ widely in their nature. The word I am comfortable using for reality is dhamma. However, sankhara is another word which might be used as all realities are impermanent therefore they must be a sankhara. My question is : Which word - dhamma or sankhara - should be used to translate the meaning of reality from english to pali?

I am still confused about the meaning of Dhammas. Here I take the example of science. Science has many truths. Science explains the reality in its own ways. My question is: Can we consider Science a Dhamma? If yes, then why is it a Dhamma? If not, then is science a Sankhara? Is yes, then is it Anicca? Or Is Science both a Sankhara and Dhamma?

Science can be called Dhammaniyama as per the following answer to a question. Can I say Dhammaniyama Anatta ? And what does it mean and why ?

Because there are several meanings of sanskharas and Dhamma, I am unable to exactly pin point when and what I should identify as sanskharas and when I should identify Dhamma. Please help me identify sanskharas and Dhamma in the following sentence: Max ate ice cream hurriedly and found it cold and sweet. He loved the taste of ice cream.

To clear my and my friends doubts I ask the following question : Does the word Dukkha mean the same in every context of Buddha Dhamma? My opinion is that yes ,it is a general term for all kinds of stress. There is a range of stress , from subtle to deep,and kinds of stress, depending on nature of contact of six senses. Stress of heat , stress of too much cold , stress of sharp pinch , stress of bad smell , stress of loosing loved ones and so on..

Someone said that Anicca/Anatta/Dukkha are not Dhamma, it is a pannati or concept. To clear my doubt I ask : Is Anicca/Anatta/Dukkha a Dhamma or not ?

What is Dhamma ? Dhamma is all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. Dhamma also means different realities. Dhamma also means nature of things. Take for example body , it is made up of parts. Dhamma is the body and it is made up of six senses and other body parts like heart , kidney, intestines etc . Each part can be called a Dhamma. However I read someone saying that Dhamma can not be made up of other Dhammas. My question is : Can a Dhamma be made up of other Dhammas ?

This question arises from a [comment]( https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49452/is-emptiness-empty-of-dhammas?noredirect=1#comment79502_49452) in a [related post](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49452/is-emptiness-empty-of-dhammas) . 1. Is there any mention in the sutras on the Buddha speaking of sunyata as a dhamma? How is sunyata defined? As a phenomena by itself or is it an idea, a concept, a perception, a realization, etc? 2. Is emptiness a characteristic of the Deathless i.e. the Unconditioned as alluded in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3836/are-there-different-types-of-emptiness-%c5%9a%c5%abnyat%c4%81/3863#3863) ? Thank you.

In this forum, while discussing emptiness as supreme truth, I came across following comment which may be relevant from Mahayana point of view: > "The realisation that things are not as how they appear in cultivated through emptiness of self (anatta) and emptiness of all phenomena." Poster says emptiness is empty of self and all phenomena (meaning "all Dhammas"), which translates to "All Dhammas are empty of all Dhammas". My questions are: 1. Are Dhammas empty of Dhammas? 2. Is emptiness empty of unconditioned or is emptiness empty of unborn, uncreated and unoriginated? I think Dhammas can not be empty of Dhammas. It is like body is empty of body and there is nothing to be discarded. In my opinion Dhammas can only be empty of self. What is your opinion?

In Nanavira 's Notes of Dhamma on Mano : > Note that just as the eye, as cakkhāyatana or cakkhudhātu, is that yena lokasmim lokasaññī hoti lokamānī ('[that] by which, in the world, one is a perceiver and conceiver of the world') (Salāyatana Samy. xii,3 ), i.e. that thing in the world dependent upon which there is perceiving and conceiving of the world, namely a spherical lump of flesh set in my face; so the mind, as manāyatana or manodhātu, also is that yena lokasmim lokasaññī hoti lokamānī, i.e. that thing in the world dependent upon which there is perceiving and conceiving of the world, namely various ill-defined parts of my body, but principally a mass of grey matter contained in my head (physiological and neurological descriptions are strictly out of place—see PHASSA).[c] This is in agreement with the fact that all five khandhā arise in connexion with each of the six āyatanāni—see NĀMA & PHASSA [a]. For 'perceiving and conceiving' see MAMA [a]. > More loosely, in other contexts, the mind (mano) is simply 'imagination' or 'reflexion', which, strictly, in the context of the foregoing paragraph, is manoviññāna, i.e. the presence of images. See NĀMA [c]. The Vibhanga (of the Abhidhamma Pitaka) introduces chaos by supposing that manodhātu and manoviññānadhatu are successive stages of awareness, differing only in intensity (and perhaps also, somehow, in kind). See CITTA. Why does he feel that imagination is a looser translation of the word mano than the way it is defined in the previous paragraph?

1. What is atthakalap? 2. So famously known as soul-> atta in Buddha's teachings .. how can one derive soul from atthakalap? 3. And what's after liberated state from atthakalap is achieved? 4. Is liberated mind impermanent too, if so then how or why not if not? I was wondering how this atthakalap works. Thanks to the anger-looking collection of few points [in this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/48515/do-so-called-buddhists-understand-the-term-nous-citta-mind-in-doctrine) , now I can imagine (via analysis) soul and atthakalap, and this is how I understand (or "this knowledge came like this"): Like the mind is cheated by itself via everything in form of grasping -- from point 5 from above link... > For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto consciousness. ...and atthakalap is said to have 4 members with 4 properties and all are like beads tied to a "rope in form of mind". This mind is not the actual rope rather it tries to be the one due to ignorance(here comes the ignorance part where it can be judged clearly) and when mind stops being a rope here, these beads do not break and shatter rather the impermanent beads remain as it is but mind is freed from that. In that way, everything is impermanent... is observed. In that way, mind is liberated and is said to achieve permanence(in terms of non grasping forever, non clinging forever..). 3. But there is one more concern here, when mind is freed what happens to mind then, after? 4. What's the way to check mind's impermanence, is it's impermanence a way to express change within itself, if so wt's that change?.. :::::: or is there no such thing as mind, it's just the process within body, process of karma(action) which has started to cease after achieving that state!! 5. What's the difference b/w that state and Brahma, if any? (Note:- if reader is not feeling good then kind request to either edit it or break it into multiple sub topics with linked questions, mentioning links in them with seq. Number).