Dawn of the Truth

  The Wisdom of the Khajjaneeya Sutta A translation based on a discussion by Venerable Alawwe Anomadassi Thero : Version 2 The core of the Buddha’s teaching in the Khajjaneeya Sutta (SN 22.79) focuses on a radical shift in perspective: moving from seeing "things" (nouns) to seeing "processes" (verbs/actions). This shift dismantles the illusion of a solid self ( Sakkaya ) and the artificial duality of internal versus external. 1. The Nature of Consciousness and Naming In the Khajjaneeya Sutta , the Buddha defines consciousness through its function: “Vijanatiti kho bhikkhave, tasmā viññāṇanti vuccathi” > ( It cognizes, monks; that is why it is called 'consciousness'. ) Just as we use nouns like "table" or "chair" for communication, we use terms like "falling sick" or "dying." These are designations ( pannațți ), expressions ( vohāra ), and linguistic conventions ( nirutti ). We cannot have a name without a c...

                                     A translation based on a discussion by Venerable Alawwe Anomadassi Thero :      Version 1 This reflection explores the Khajjaneeya Sutta (SN 22.79) and the radical shift it demands: moving from seeing "things" (nouns) to seeing "processes" (verbs). By understanding how the mind constructs a "self" out of simple occurrences, we can dismantle the duality of internal/external. 1. The Nature of Naming: "Tasmā" (Therefore) In the Khajjaneeya Sutta , the Buddha defines the Five Aggregates through their function. For example: “Ruppatīti kho bhikkhave, tasmā rūpanti vuccathi” (It is afflicted, monks; therefore, it is called ‘form’.) The word Tasmā is the key. It tells us that a "Name" (like Form or Rupa) is only a label for an action that is already happening. We cannot have a name without a Siduweema (occurrence); we cannot say "co...

  This article is based on a translation of an extract from a recent Dhamma discussion regarding the nature of inquiry and the perception of impermanence. The other day, we explored how to truly examine the mind and meditate with inquiry. A major obstacle surfaced: we often attempt to practice a "method" that is merely a conceptual label, rather than engaging with the actual method itself. I urged you to meditate on impermanence ( anicca ) to support your internal vision, rather than becoming entangled in terminology. The Paradox: Communication vs. Practice The Buddha disclosed the Dhamma to the world in a way it is easily communicated. In that sense, it is a "worldly practice"—it uses our language and our concepts. However, there is a subtle but vital distinction to be made: while the Dhamma is explained to the world so it can be understood, the actual practice should not be a "worldly" one. When we adopt a meditation method based on our worldly habits, i...

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...