Dhamma with Ajahn Sujin

1m Nina: I found the last time the explanations of what is nama very helpful because I always find it difficult to find to understand the difference between nama and rupa and Ajahn warn us not to get lost in stories but understands what appears at this moment I cannot hear that enough what appears and in a talk long ago by Ajahn, she explained about appearing people and things do not appear we think of people or flowers but do not pay attention to what appears through the eyes and can be seen. Thinking of people and stories is not right understanding of the characteristic of the reality that appears through eyes. Now, I find this very interesting. Today Ajahn stresses more and more it has to be known as no one nothing otherwise there is not the clear comprehension of the nature which appears as non-self and this is the beginning of direct understanding of what we have studied for so long, Ajahn says, and from intellectual understanding to the moment of the direct experience of the

1:10m A. Sujin: So let's talk about cetasikas at the moment of metta or karuna, those which are there that could be the object. When we talk about the object it has to be one at a time, not all together. So at moment of metta or karuna there are so many realities, which are there to be object, an object. Without the understanding of what hiri and otappa is, even they are there, can one be the object of understanding when there is no understanding of its characteristic at all? And it's not only the moment of metta and karuna, any moment of kusala it's because hiri is there. So can that hiri be the object of understanding as no one and no thing? No one can have it at will because it's not time yet, the conditions are not enough to understand it when it's not there as object. But from more, very keen understanding with confidence, it can be object of understanding, unexpectedly. That's why it is anatta, and when it falls away is suññata, never lasts for long

19m Tadao: I have a question, when I think of realities in terms of Abhidhamma... A. Sujin: Excuse me, what do you mean by "in terms of Abhidhamma"? Tadao: I somehow think of Abhidhamma... I often think about realities in terms of five khandhas and vīthi cittas, so in the case of sense door processes there are 17 cittas but last week you asked me whether vitakka accompanies the cakkhuviññana citta or not and I couldn't understand the significance of that question because for me seeing means at least a few rounds of 17 cittas. That was my understanding but when you ask me a question whether a single eye-consciousness is accompanied by vitakka or not then somehow I realized I've realized that seeing doesn't mean that there are 17 cittas as a process so possibly seeing means just one single moment of citta and I'd like to know if it is the case or not seeing just means one citta nothing but one citta. A. Sujin: Does only one citta arises in a moment, o