Posts

When it seems or it looks it means that there's no understanding of the truth

Image
[Mark] My question would be, I think, if I find myself, my mind being agitated and at the same time I see the relation between the agitation and the unpleasant feeling I can see something's happening in the mind which looks like compassion and at that same time the agitation just dissolves and also the unpleasant feeling. [A. Sujin] Realities are so very subtle and if we don't talk about each one carefully we might misunderstand its meaning. For example, the translation, about metta or the development of metta, I am not sure, I would like the one who understands Pali to translate it because to me I don't think that there can be any moment of metta towards oneself, what does it mean? The other person, I understand that, but to oneself I cannot understand that at all. How can there be metta to oneself? [Mark] I think there can be some goodness towards oneself, when I see agitation and I see unpleasant feeling there can be sort of relaxation... [A. Sujin] Agitati

Nothing lasts enough to be known as something

Transcript from 2022-6-09-pm.mp3 (1m) in BKK by Chanti, edited by Alberto. Q: We learn that realities like citta and cetasikas arise and fall away, and because of that there are nimittas.  A Sujin: Yes. That’s why when we talk about seeing, there is nimitta of seeing, but in truth there is not only one single moment of seeing. And how many colours are seen now? Q: I think there are many colours. A Sujin: Yes. And when there is one colour, - still - it is nimitta of one colour. So, when there are many colours appearing, it means that there are so many, uncountable moments of seeing. Different colours, one colour at a time.  Q: Ajahn, there are many moments, like hearing and seeing, so why does the nimitta become for example the leaf, we see a leaf?  A Sujin: We are going from moment to moment, understanding. Now, at the moment of seeing, there are so many different colours, mimitta of each colour and nimitta of many colours, conditions the idea of something with shape and fo

Understanding the origin of what is taken for sammuti

Image
[Sarah] Ajahn, I think Alan was asking about sammuti, not nimitta and sammuti such as conventional truth as opposed to paramattha sacca. [A. Sujin] But without the understanding the origin of what is taken for sammuti and sammuti sacca, how can there be the understanding of the meaning of it? For example now, is there any doubt about reality and nimitta? Without nimitta can there be sammuti? So, how come the idea of sammuti, how to understand it? Without understanding that without reality there is no nimitta and when there's no reality, no nimitta, how can there be sammuti? So, what conditions sammuti? Without reality, can there be sammuti? And without the nimitta of a reality can there be sammuti as citta and cetasikas? And without the nimitta as shape and form, how can there be the king or the violin, the piano and so on? But when there is the understanding of what conditions the moment of thinking about sammuti, what sammuti is, it has to be the understanding of the

Kasina, the sign which is not people and things

Image
[Little Hang] In vipassana if citta has concept as object then pañña can understand that it's not a reality, but samatha cannot distinguish between concept and reality... [A. Sujin] So at the moment of vipassana how strong pañña is there that it can understand what is there as it is. Even from the very beginning to the end, clearer and clearer and clearer, understanding the reality right now as it is, right now or anytime when it's strong enough, developed enough to realize the truth of what is there as no one. Otherwise it cannot be vipassana, the degree of understanding at level of vipassana, when there is still I or not understanding the truth as no one there at all. So, vipassana is not just being aware and beginning to develop the understanding of that as it is, but it is moment of unexpectedly realizing the nature which is not self, so clearly, beyond expectation, that's why it is vi-passana, clear comprehension or clearness of pañña, which understands the

Vayo-dhatu, without body-sense nothing could appear as moving

Image
[Jotika] So Ajahn, there is the feeling of the heart beating... [A. Sujin] Execuse me, what [is that] you take for heart beating? Is there something that you take for heart beating? [Jotika] The movement in the body... [A. Sujin] There must be a rupa, right? It cannot experience, but it's soft or hard. So, when it moves, at that moment, is it real that which moves? So, what is the beating, again? Because when you talk about that which moves there must be a reality, right? If it's not there how can there be the idea that it moves? So, there must be a reality and that['s what] moves, no one and no thing at all, no heart because it's only the moving, that which moves. And that which moves cannot experience anything, it moves when it appears and when there's no moving the moving does not appear, the other reality appears, when you touch it is hard, but when it moves, without that which impinges on the body base, can it appear as something moving? Or, where

Buddhanussati, the virtues of the Buddha are there, to be visited

Image
[Chanti] They say the Buddha said if you have faith and confidence in my Teachings you should go to the places where I was born, where I was enlightened, etc, and was interpreted as the Buddha really said you should go, and if you go and do the pilgrimage then you'll be reborn in heaven. [A. Sujin] To go anywhere is not a must at all, all depends on conditions, so, each has one's own motivation to do this and that or to visit the holy places on, but for me, I think that when I went there I thought about the place [where] the Buddha once sat and whatever he taught, from this place to another place, all over the the places there. That's why it can be the reminder of his great compassion, his great virtue, and at that very moment I think that I'm paying respect to the place where he was born and enlightened and taught the Teachings and passed away, to pay respect to such quality that were once there in that place. So, it doesn't matter at all, for someone, e

Sanditthiko, as it is, not as one expects it to be

Image
[A. Sujin] So now, are we talking about svakhato? Without the Teachings of the Buddha could anyone understand what is there now? So, the Teachings of the Buddha are svakhato. From his enlightenment, he taught about the absolute of what is there, from moment to moment, by different means, conditions and function and so on, all are svakhato. The Teachings of the Enlightened One about understanding the truth of what is there, no matter when. The Buddha taught about this moment, what is there, svakhato, this is the Buddha's Teachings about the truth that can be known, more or less, depending on conditions, but without the Teachings of the truth as the Buddha taught who could understand the truth of what is there now? Impossible. So svakhato means the Teachings of the Enlightened One, to understand the truth of what he has enlightened, to share with the others, for the others to understand the truth too, not just for himself alone. So, about the Dhamma, is it svakhato? The Te

Sakkaya-ditthi: what appears is not as it is, what is there is not as it appears

Image
[A. Sujin] So, can there be clear understanding of the words without any understanding of the truth of what is there? For example, nama or citta or cetasikas, only words. What about the understanding of those words? Clear enough? Or not clear when there's no understanding of the reality which is there, appearing. The word is not forgotten but what about the truth when it's there? Like now, seeing, it's a reality, but what is that which is a reality, which arises and experiences an object now? So the understanding of the word has to go together with understanding what is there too, otherwise it's just only the word, remembered. That's why there can be anyone who just read the Tipitaka but has wrong understanding, like bhavana - meditation. That's why no expectation at all, just hear again, consider again, have more confidence, a little more, again and again and again, and right understanding develops, so subtly that no one knows until it conditions the r

Vipallasa, not as it is because the truth is not known at all

Image
[A. Sujin] Shall we clarify just one point or one question at a time until it's clearly understood? What is just one or the first question about? What shall we begin [with]? [Marc] Maybe the question is why does an arahant help another person, if he sees that it's not a person? [ A. Sujin] Because of understanding of the truth, it conditions compassion and kindness because of understanding what is the unwholesome situation and [its] truth and what is that which understands the truth. So the point is that you'd like to help people not to have suffering, right? Can you do that? Because you see that can you live until the moment you can help the others not to have suffering at all? [Marc] I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? [A. Sujin] Do you think that you can help everyone in the world, not to have suffering? [Marc] No, I can't, no. [A. Sujin] So, it's impossible to help the others not to have such suffering or situation because there must b

Vayo-dhatu: that which is pressure, different from heat and cold, hardness and softness

Image
[Vincent] When we say feeling is a disease, it's the root because it's the root for disease, or any other khandhas, could you talk more about this? [A. Sujin] I think that we just talk about everything to understand the word and the term, but not understanding the absolute truth. For example, while one is having food or after having food, sometimes there can be some uneasy feeling too, is that right? and we think that that very moment it's uneasy and it's unpleasant, the bodily feeling. We just know that, but what about the reality which is there? Today, taking food has been very smooth, but sometimes it's not like that at all, so what is there? It's a reality, no matter we call it disease or vayo-dhatu, the wind element, or whatever, but it shows up as: it is just that, it has its characteristic, not as usual after eating or while eating. All realities are there, unknown until the Buddha taught about them, each one as it is, different one. We can expla

Anatta, no one can change it or do anything: it's already there

Image
[Leena] We understand that it's the dhammas which are arising, it's all conditioned, that it's not in our hands and this is possibly because of our kamma that conditioning is so powerful and the conditions are arising causing certain things to be present, but when we say that dhammas are non-self, they are not because of... this is not under our control, isn't it just at intellectual level? So, suppose one really wants to penetrate kamma and one is not conditioned to understand it, the conditions are not right, he cannot actually penetrate the dhamma, he cannot actually understand dhamma, then he cannot actually progress further and that possibly depends on his kamma, so, where does the viriya fit into it? [A. Sujin] It seems like there is some understanding while we say about anything, like dhamma and viriya and so on, but what did the Buddha say about that? Can we understand the meaning of the words we say? Or, we can think [it] up in our own way, or listen t