Too Crazy


revised on 2024-06-10


Dhamma Talks by Mogok Sayadaw; 14th September 1962

Having affections for family members (wife and children) is taṇhā. "I am still able to work" is māna. In the words – "I am able," the "I"-ness is diṭṭhi. These taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi are not arising by themselves (these are papañca dhamma – extensions of saṁsāra). These dhammas arise from clinging to the khandha. Thus, you have to acknowledge that taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi arise from the khandha. They arise because of wrong seeing. For the ariyas, they do not arise. It’s like the example of the mirror. When the khandha exists and wrong attention (ayoniso) is applied, the two combined result in the arising of taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi (wrong seeing of the khandha). Only by knowing the arising can one know the way of extermination. With the wrong attention to the khandha → taṇhā, māna, diṭṭhi, upādāna, and kamma → extension of saṁsāra (sec. two connects to sec. 3). Therefore, these are papañca dhammas.

Sayadaw gave some examples for them. A man marries a woman (taṇhā). A mother attaches to her son ("my son" – diṭṭhi). There are two causes for the arising of taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi.

These are – khandha (one’s own and others) and wrong attention (ayoniso). If you don't have papañca today, you'll be happy today. Its fault is not small. Continuing the Ven. Puṇṇa’s teaching to Ven. Ānanda. The shadow arises from someone standing in front of the mirror. The one in front of the mirror looked like the shadow. If you ask me, "Isn't it me or the other person?" The answer should be – it’s neither me nor another. If your answer is "me," then there are two of me there. If you answer as the other person, then it’s like me. Therefore, the dhamma is neither me nor another phenomenon. Taṇhā, māna, diṭṭhi are neither me nor another phenomena. If you separate the mirror and the person, there is no shadow there. Therefore, it arises by causes. With the causes ceasing, the shadow is not there anymore or not arising. Therefore, it’s an arising and vanishing phenomenon. So if taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi arise, one must contemplate them as anicca. They are also not me nor others; they are non-self (anatta) phenomena. Therefore, if they arise, one can also contemplate them as anatta dhammas. Every time they arise, contemplate them as arising – vanishing anatta.

(Continues on cittānupassanā) Contemplating anicca involves seeing with the right attention, and path factors arise (maggaṅga). Seeing with the wrong attention leads to the rise of taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi. If you break down the mirror, the shadow can’t arise. In the same way, if you break down the mirror-like khandha with anicca, taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi can’t arise. The practice is aimed at making the shadows (i.e., taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi) not arise.

(Sayadaw’s teachings make the profound and subtle dhammas clear and understandable to the listeners).


revised on 2024-06-10


  • Content of Part 14 on "Dhamma Talks by Mogok Sayadaw"

  • Content of "Dhamma Talks by Mogok Sayadaw"

  • Content of Publications of Ven. Uttamo

According to the translator— Ven. Uttamo's words, this is strictly for free distribution only, as a gift of Dhamma—Dhamma Dāna. You may re-format, reprint, translate, and redistribute this work in any medium.

據英譯者—鄔達摩比丘交待,此譯文僅能免費與大眾結緣,作為法的禮物(Dhamma Dāna)。你可以在任何媒體上重新編製、重印、翻譯和重新發布這部作品。