Dhamma with Ajahn Sujin

A. Sujin: Is there you now? Lukas: Yes A. Sujin: See, not enough considering. What is you, if there is you. Lukas: It's true what you're saying, not enough considering, and I think maybe I'm supposed to study Dhamma more, I bet it would help, at least I believe it will help, if I put... I study Dhamma more. A. Sujin: Okay, just one question, is there I? Lukas: No, Ajahn... Yes, but not in reality, not in truth. A. Sujin: Okay, and everything is not I, not thing, not anything, only a reality, right? Until it appears as it is, from understanding little by little, letting go the idea of self little by little, until understanding is strong enough to experience the truth which only appears to the pañña of that degree. We are talking about no self now but it's not pañña of that degree which can experience directly what is there now as it is, as not self but more understanding lets go the idea of self little by little, by conditions. Without understanding, how can th

Lukas: My question to Tan Ajahn is my lack of motivation or interest in understanding Dhamma even though sometimes I feel I do have some interest in some part of Tipitaka or even a bit of interest to study Dhamma from time to time but my life is really not good, all these addictions and everything I'm trying to get rid of and I'm now I'm trying to stay on a good path and don't go somewhere astray. So as I said in I think now like even the interest in my case is not enough and I feel like I need to put a lot of effort to really understand Dhamma now. I don't feel it's spontaneous for me and that's my question, what would you advise about the effort to really understand Dhamma, thank you. A. Sujin: You study Dhamma, to understand what? Are you learning to understand what is there now? Lukas: As you as you always say to us there must be something. A. Sujin: So when there's no understanding of something there, can that bring about more understanding of wh

A. Sujin: You are talking about bhavanga citta, the object of bhavanga citta, right? But there are so many realities that cannot be known, for example, the birth consciousness, the death consciousness, can they be known? Not at all, so the same for bhavanga, it cannot be known until the pañña is so high that it can experience different realities one at a time, and what is there is what we call bhavanga. But, when there is the understanding of the words like "no one" and "no self", why did the Buddha teach about that which cannot be directly experienced, like birth consciousness and death consciousness? But it's there, who knows? That's why it's in the Teachings: it brings about the understanding of "no one", more and more and more and more, from understanding the truth of what is there, unknown. For example is there any citta before the eye process, ear process? Is there a citta? A citta, see, what is that? That cannot directly be the object

Maeve: Ajahn, while you are speaking you are teaching us the truth of the Dhamma, but even in in the short time of listening so many other thoughts arise that I found myself thinking that I really want to listen carefully to what you are saying, and the mind is, as we said before, just like a monkey, swinging on something else, and so many things even while the truth of the Dhamma is being spoken, and so many other moments are arising at that time, it made me think about how when the Dhamma is not being heard, how much more frequent that is. But there must be some recollection otherwise there would not be some inclination to listen again, and maybe that is enough. A. Sujin: Is there memory? The memory of what has been heard, as: no self, what is now appearing is gone. It can condition moments of considering the word of the truth of that, even it does not appear as it is yet. But it begins not to forget to understand the truth that it's there just for a moment, very shortly. Ri

Maeve: May ask you a question about the Buddha's compassion, because I found myself thinking about how the Buddha hesitated to teach because he knew how subtle and deep the Teachings were. However he still proceeded, he made the decision to proceed to teach and given his infinite compassion I actually believe that embedded in the Teachings is something that enables that experience of the compassion to help and support the development of understanding, but how does the Buddha's compassion affect the understanding of the teachings? A. Sujin: Shall we start with what is compassion? Is it I or you or anyone, or what is it? Maeve: It's the cetasika that arises and sees the suffering nature, understands the suffering nature of another being. A. Sujin: When it does not arise, can you know it, as you know that it's not me? When it does not arise when it does not appear when it's not there, can we know it? But what about the moment when it's there. There must be a

Azita: I have a comment, many more mind door processes than sense door processes, could you talk a little about that please, that's always confused me a little, it doesn't appear that way. A. Sujin: Can anyone understand the sense door process and the mind process now? What can be understood right now: what kind of citta? What doorway? Or just the reality which is now experiencing an object unknown as it is, because no understanding of what is meant by seeing. When we ask someone: where is seeing, is there seeing? They might get some perplexity about why do we say or ask about that, see. Because is there anyone understanding seeing as it is, not self? We just keep on talking about seeing, now there is seeing for sure, but what is that? See, not self, so what is it? Only the moment of experiencing an object, no thought about sense door or mind door yet. That's why when there is no understanding of the difference between that which experiences and that which is experienc

Betty: Tan Ajahn, would you say that the... I guess you're going to call it the cure for the problem, is that we need to listen more read more, study more and of course there will be conditions, but it's not something where we can say all right I must do it, I have to do it, it's not an I doing it, if there are conditions the thought arises in the mind to do, to read more, or there's viriya to read more or to do more then okay, but if it's something where you set a schedule and say, well I have to do this then it's not natural. A. Sujin: I think that there is a thing around, one by one, and no understanding of life, of that moment, of the reality right then at all. That's why when we hear the term or the word Buddha, what does it mean? The one who has enlightened the truth, and he taught us everything about what is now. So the point of studying the words of the Buddha must be just to understand what is there now. That's why we listen to each word of

Azita: What’s a good way of introducing a small child to the Dhamma? A. Sujin: Just talk about reality, that which is true, for example: what is there now, and she may say something. The first question is not the explanation about the truth yet, because she cannot understand it for sure, but you can say: is it real? What is real is real, but we don’t talk about the truth of that, as she cannot understand that yet. But she can understand dhamma: is this dhamma? It’s dhamma: it’s real, it tastes… what is it… sweet. Is it sweet? She says yes, and that is dhamma, or real. But even if you don’t use the word dhamma, you use the word in her language, she can understand that we are talking about that which is there, but not deep as it is yet. But she begins to understand that what is there is real. In the sense of everyone who can understand in the beginning, because we are talking about realities, but even the word reality is very hard to understand, because: what is it which is real? It’

Vincent: Sawadee kap, Ajahn, did you hear the discussion, or would you like to say something? A. Sujin: About what? So many words, so what you would like to talk about, discuss? V: We were discussing how people would like to respond nicely, Sarah had some explanation and the person who asked the question said that she understands. S: So, what is the understanding? I'd like to understand the nature, the truth of what she said "I understand". What is the understanding? Or, what is that which understands? V: Pañña understands. S: What is that which is pañña? V: Is the dhamma which understand. S: What kind of dhamma is that? Can seeing be pañña? Seeing is not pañña, so what is that which is pañña? Is it there now? V: Maybe there is pañña, but it arises and falls away. S: We try to think about maybe, but what exactly is that which is pañña? No one, or "I understand"? There is the word pañña, but is there pañña at that moment? The truth can be und

Azita: Ajahn, you spoke about the āsavas, the four āsavas so kamāsava it would appear to arises more often than any of the other three could I say that or is that just guessing again? A Sujin: When there is nothing, nothing at all, can there be the world, when there’s nothing at all? Nothing at all, not even citta, cetasikas, and rupa. But it’s impossible to stop the way it is, there must be the reality which cannot understand anything. We know what they are, but without the reality that arises to experience, no one can stop its arising at all, because there must be conditions for each reality as it is. At that moment when nothing appears at all, and then just one reality, one means one, even there are many things arising together, even that one, who knows that there is attachment to that object already, because of ignorance see, otherwise how come, the seeing and the attachment from one moment, one, only one, very very tiny piece of rupa, who knows that there is attachment to that

Sarah: I have a comment and a question the comment is yes we usually think of patience in terms of situation waiting patiently for one’s lunch or something like this and then we learn that it’s very cheater speaker and it arises with almost every moment except most of the ahetuka cittas such as seeing and hearing and so on and so it’s quite different from the conventional idea of patience that that khanti or patience can be kusala or akusala usually it’s akusala patience they’re quite different from our conventional idea, my question Ajahn is we say that khanti is viriya and it arises every citta except for cittas and so on and this is exactly what we say about effort viriya or energy viriya so it makes it sound as though in that respect that khanti and the patience and effort are just the same because they’re both viriya and they both arise with the same cittas but sometimes we refer to sometimes to patience and sometimes to effort so when we talk about patience with all arising of

Azita: Ajahn, I have a question regarding everyday patience and khanti parami, what is the difference, if any? A. Sujin: Between khanti parami and viriya? Azita: And everyday patience, like being patient if you're waiting for a bus or grandchildren or whatever, is that viriya? A. Sujin: Is there khanti cetasika or only viriya cetasika? Azita: Well, I understand it’s just viriya. A. Sujin: Okay, but sometimes it’s there unknown, for example, after seeing, after sampaticchana and so on, or, it depends what citta has viriya with it, unknown all the time. Even right now just move your finger, it has to be with viriya cetasika, otherwise only citta without viriya cannot do that at all. That’s why there are so many things now, many many things unknown. Only just one reality can be the object of citta at a time. That’s why instead of trying to understand that nature, the reality of viriya, if we try so much we cannot understand that, because it’s the lobha, which hinders the under

A. Sujin: We’ve talked about kathā vatthu, and kathā vatthu is the subject or object about having no attachment, no lobha at all, from stage to stage, to the end, when there is no lobha at all. But it has to be little by little, in order to have no lobha at all, it cannot be all at once, that's why even santuṭṭhi (contentment). Can there be no lobha all at once now? Impossible. That’s why in daily life one should understand the moment when there is lobha and when there is no lobha, or when there is very strong lobha and very little lobha. But at the end, the moment without lobha is the moment of enlightenment, having completely no lobha. But it has to become, from this moment right now, and right now it’s not the one which has gone, when we say "now is gone", each one is gone. That’s why understanding intellectually about how there will be no lobha at all, at the end, but not at the very beginning. For example, if we are not just as disturbed by wanting so much, the

[A. Sujin] Maeve's question about how can one know how much development of right understanding is there, I think that we don't have to ask anyone but daily life is the questioner or the examiner whether we understand that, how much understanding of Dhamma is there because Dhamma is not in the book. No matter what word we're talking [about], like seeing right now, it's now, hearing right now, thinking right now. So instead of thinking about how much development of understanding is there, it is the moment of whatever appears, and the accumulation of right understanding can have conditions to arise to understand, no expectation at all when. For example right now, we've learned a lot, we've read a lot, but the understanding of reality is different from the understanding from book but now from book we understand theoretically that there's no one, but how can this moment be no self or not me or no one? It depends on conditions because the point, the absolu