Dawn of the Truth

Venerable Alawwe Anomadassi Thero presents a clear distinction between two methods of mindfulness, arguing that only one is truly productive in dismantling the self (sakkaya nirodha ˉ ). The Two Modes of Practice The sermon contrasts two approaches based on their immediate effectiveness versus their sustainability: Mindfulness with Intention ( manasik a ˉ ra ) and Focus: This practice is driven by a deliberate intent or focus, which makes it easier to sustain for longer periods . However, precisely because it is governed by an intentional 'doer,' it is considered less direct in bringing one closer to the Dhamma and the insight of non-self . Bare Awareness of What Occurs: This is the unforced, non-reactive observation of phenomena, which brings one closer to the Dhamma . Its challenge is that, lacking the deliberate anchor of manasik a ˉ ra , it is difficult to sustain for extended durations. The Superiority of Internal Engagement The true focus of the teaching is on the m...

  This article presents a dialogue with Venerable Anomadassi Thero, exploring a core concept in Buddhist philosophy: the nature of the "I" ( wemi ) . We often assume the "I" is a solid, permanent entity, but the venerable monk clarifies that it is a distortion arising from clinging . The conversation unravels this illusion by distinguishing between the direct experience of "me" and the much more common notion of "mine" ( mama:pali ) , which is tied to objects and actions. The dialogue highlights a key error in our perception: we believe a separate "I" does an action, rather than seeing the "I" arise with the action itself . This false view traps us in a cycle of distortion. Ultimately, the discussion shifts to the path of a practitioner, contrasting the worldly view of existence with non-existence . A practitioner's wisdom allows them to see through the illusion of the "I" and realise the truth as really i...

  Understanding the Vision of Non-Self Question: Venerable sir, you've clarified that the phrase "N'etam mama, n'eso'ham asmi, n'eso me attā" ("This is not mine, I am not this, this is not myself") is not a personal assessment but a profound, direct vision of reality. This vision seems to be the very essence of abandoning the self ( sakkāya nirodha ). Is my understanding correct? Also, when we guide someone toward this truth, isn't it through this vision that the Dhamma is seen as profound ( athakkawachara ), leading to a state of complete loyalty and devotion ( anugatha ), rather than just intellectual reasoning? I tried to practice this, but I couldn't sustain the discernment, reverting to old habits. How can I sustain this practice? Answer: That's a perceptive question, and you've touched on a critical point. As long as we hold onto the notion of "self" or "I am" ( Pathavī ), any attempt to tran...

  I am delighted to announce the publication of my new book, Beyond Self: Insights Into Buddhist Liberation. This book is a contemporary exploration of the Dhamma, and it’s a project that is very close to my heart. It contains edited content from many of the articles previously published here on the Dawn of The Truth blog, which were translated excerpts of Dhamma sermons by the Venerable Alawwe Anomadassi. For those of you who have followed the blog over the years, I hope this book serves as a valuable resource for your personal practice. Beyond Self can be ordered as a paperback or in eBook format from the link below: https://www.amazon.com/dp/ B0FJR5V4H7 With Metta!"

Question: Venerable Sir, when the eye is investigated truthfully according to the Dhamma, it cannot be found to exist, nor is there any apparent functionality of an “eye” that exists. However, an eye is always manifested in the world along with its functionality. Is this the basis for the Buddha’s statement in the Kamma Sutra, “Chakkun bhikkhave purana kamman”? Furthermore, when it is said that something is seen by the eye, it suggests the existence of a functional eye. Yet, in a true sense, such functionality cannot manifest according to the Dhamma. How should this be understood? Answer: Yes, that is the reason. When something is seen, or when we experience a sensation in the eye, it is referred to as arising (samudaya). This sensation can also be understood as a conditioned phenomenon—a result of one thing depending on another. On such grounds, we say there is a visual experience or a sensation in the eye. This sensation is prepared (abhisamkathan) and thought out or willed (abhi...

While he was residing at Savatthi the Brahman Unnaabha approached the Buddha  and after exchanging greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha; "There are these five sense faculties, good Gotama, of different spheres, different action, and they do not share in each other's sphere of action. Which five? The sense of sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. As these five faculties are of different scope and range, and do not share in each other's sphere of action, what is their resort, and who profits from their combined activity?" "There are, Brahman, these five sense-faculties... which do not share in each other's sphere of action. Mind is their resort, and it is the mind that profits from their combined activity" the Buddha explained. It is evident from what the  Brahmin Unnabha raised here, his desire to find answers to the questions he faced through his inquiry into such salient Dhamma he had lear...

  As we do not clearly know consioussness and its function as it is, we hold onto knowing something, something that we get to know, in other words we tend to associate a name form. It is the state of naming a form that we encounter, for e.g. as a thing with colour and shape.  However, if we endeavour to understand consioussness as it is, we need to focus on the process of consioussness. In the simile of the bicycle, for instance, we only see the movement of the bicycle rather than its actual function. We only observe its movement from one place to another but not its mechanism, i.e. how its rear wheel rotates with turning of the push pedals, causing its  movement.  Similarly, to understand the process of consioussness we need to focus on its function and not things that we get to know. How we comprehend consciousness as a process is the role of wisdom. On the other hand, if we focus on the name form, we are overlooking the actual process of consciousness ....