Compassion can be known when it's there

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 moment in which compassion is there, when it arises for sure, right? But no understanding of it, even it's there, the sympathy and understanding the other troubles, it's there. What about the moment when someone sees such a situation and there is no compassion at all, and for some, why it's there? That's why it's a reality and it can be understood at moment when it's there, to be known, even we don't use any word at all, but it's there.

Anyone who hasn't heard about the word compassion as the Teaching of no self, understands the difference between with compassion or without compassion. So the characteristic of compassion is there to be known, but not as I. It's conditioned because some have compassion and some don't have compassion at all. It's a reality which is conditioned, different from other moments without compassion. So it's beyond words to say what is it, but when it's there no one can change it, but the understanding of it as not self is not there, just to know that "oh that is compassion".

It's not necessary to use any word when it's there, the understanding of that moment can be known because it's different from other moments without compassion, is that right? So to ask about compassion, when it's there it's known since it is different from other realities, but no one there at all, different accumulation, different habits, different upanissaya paccaya. When it's hot, do you ask about the characteristic of heat when heat is not there? But when heat is there, no word, and is known as a reality which is that.

Depending on what words you use or anyone uses to represent it as "it is that which is hot", a characteristic. Even someone doesn't say whether it's hot at all, but hotness or heat is there already, to be known as not the other moment when it's cold. So the point is that whatever is there, must be there by conditions: kindness, compassion, or cruelty, or whatever it is there. But no understanding of the truth, that it's conditioned to arise to be there, by conditions. People are different by conditions, accumulation, different all the time. That's why beginning to understand the truth, whatever is there is real, it's conditioned. Before then it hadn't arisen yet, no one can make it arise but it's there.

So the best thing is to understand the truth as not self at all, otherwise the idea of self follows, each life, from now on, on and on and on and on. That's why when we think, do we have to say the word compassion, or it's there, the moment of understanding the other troubles, and the moment which doesn't care about the feelings of others at all, different moments. All are different and only once in samsara, no more at all, only that. When we talk about anything there can be clear understanding of the word of the reality which that word represents. For example, like, it's there almost all the time in a day. Shall we ask about the moment when it arises whether it's like? No, impossible.

Because the characteristic of lobha is there, even we don't use any term or if we use different terms. It doesn't change its nature, no matter we say like, or love, or whatever, it's that characteristic, depending on what degree at that moment, when it's conditioned to be just as such, in that moment, in samsara. It's closer to the understanding of no one and no thing, otherwise it's his compassion, he or she has compassion, or what is it?

And what is nimitta, is compassion also nimitta of a reality which has the nature of thinking about the other troubles, understanding, sympathize, and so on? Different moments at a time, and if we understand the word nimitta, are they now nimitta, from moment to moment? That is what hinders the understanding of the reality of the nimitta, its nature is not known as long as we are attached to nimitta but without the absolute realities can there be any nimitta so the understanding of what nimitta is the truth of that nimitta can be known because without that truth there cannot be any nimitta like that.

So we are in the world of nimitta, no matter what we think about, what is it? The truth of it, the nature of it, the reality of it is hidden, because of the nimitta. That's why there should be the understanding of the nimitta: it's only the image of that which is arising and falling away, unknown as it is, it appears as nimitta.

Look around, you are in the nimitta, whatever is experienced, appears, is nimitta. And this is to understand how much ignorance is there from moment to moment, from life to life, from eon to eon. That's why beginning to understand the absolute truth as not self, and understand whatever is there as it is. But no one can have such moments without the understanding of each word of the Buddha, which conditions moments of thinking, even that which wasn't heard, but has been heard before, to understand even that. That's why it has to develop from stage to stage, understanding no one, no thing.

What is there? That which can experience and that which cannot experience. Even that which can experience is so deep, we keep on talking about it, but it now experiences, all the time, from moment to moment it's there, unknown, but no one there at all. Only, when it's there, to be studied, to begin to understand its nature, it's still nimitta, until the truth of it appears or is revealed by the developed pañña, from intellectual understanding to direct awareness with understanding which has been accumulated enough to condition such moments. So whatever we are talking about is in darkness, not understanding. It's just like a dream about this and that, not the time to wake up yet.

And no one can awake, only the word of the Buddha, the awakened one, to understand what's meant by being awake or asleep. Where are we now? In the world of nimitta, not awakened yet to know the truth. But we learn from in darkness heard from the sound in darkness or what is heard in darkness, all in darkness now, until pañña develops, the truth of what is there begins to appear well, little by little. Such a long long time for it to appear, which is vipassanañana, no doubt about that which experiences and that which is experienced. That is the beginning to realize the nature of nama and the nature of rupa.

Maeve: Ajahn, thinking about the Buddhist compassion can we say that it was manifested in his gift of the means by which understanding can develop so that waking up can eventually be experienced.

A. Sujin: So, if there is no understanding at all, can we understand the Buddha as the Buddha? So, in the commentary, the body of the Buddha is compared to each word of his Teachings. When we see something we cannot know who's that person at all, so when we heard the term, the word Buddha, we cannot understand, cannot see. But from each of his words, we can understand the virtues of the Buddha, his great wisdom. People are in the world of nimitta, but he enlightened the truth of what is there, not the nimitta as something, but the nature of it cannot be changed at all, cannot be known by just thinking about it, but by hearing again and again about no one and no self.

Lobha is lobha, it's conditioned to arise, so very rapidly falls away, instantly. Suññata, never to be found, never to arise again. So where's the I, at each moment there is the idea of self, so each moment there is the wrong understanding of that which appears as something or self. And when one says dukkha, it seems like everyone knows about the four noble truths, but that is not what he meant by dukkha, but that which cannot be controlled, arises and falls away, never to be found or arise again at all. And we cling to that so much, and we'd like to have it again and again, more and more, more lives, more worlds, more seeing, more hearing, more thinking.

So, when it's not like what you'd like it to be, to be permanent, but it's not, just gone, completely. When there is the understanding of this, it has to be from experiencing the truth as each reality is, not permanent at all and the characteristic, what we say nama or rupa, is known by its characteristic, no matter what we call it or not. And at the moment of understanding, there's no word, because it experiences the truth, like seeing now, we don't have to say I see, I see, or a cat sees, because it's there, it's known, that it cannot be changed to anything else.

And this is daily life, if there's no understanding of reality in daily life there's no way to eradicate the idea of self because there is doubt, there is attachment, there is ignorance, unknown all the time, which are conditions for whatever appears now.

So, does anyone experience the dukkha of whatever is now dukkha, the arising and falling away of what is now appearing? It can be known, directly known, but not now. Until pañña, understanding, develops, and at moments of understanding it lets go little by little, the clinging to that which is not known as it is, not permanent, not belonging to anyone because it's gone, arising and falling away.

And this is the meaning of the world, without the experiencing, the nama, there is no world. So, whatever arises is the world, known by pañña, which is not I, not permanent at all. What we are seeing now, that is gone, from moment to moment, but the arising of the next one hides, conceals the truth of that which is gone, that is not this one now, different ones all the time. How much ignorance is there, but the word of the truth from the Buddha enlightenment, conditions the understanding, after considering and understanding firmer and firmer a little by little, as paramis, sacca parami, and adhitthana parami, and nekkhama parami, viriya parami and khanti parami. At this moment of understanding, it is parami, when there is the understanding that the point is to understand the truth, to let go of wrong view and ignorance.

So, what is there when it's there, it can be known, it's characteristic, but not the truth of it, that arises and falls away by conditions. So it's not yet the understanding, experiencing the truth of it yet, but since it's so real, so true, it can be known, but not by ignorance, but by understanding the truth firmer and firmer. For example, now, does hardness appear well? See, just one word, it's gone before there can be understanding of it, because of no direct awareness of its characteristic, because not hearing the truth, that is not a table, a chair, that it's only hardness, and the thinking about the shape and form, which the arising and falling away, so rapidly, of a reality, conditions such moment of thinking of that shape and form, not understanding the truth of it.