No understanding of pain because the idea of "my arm" is there

(Suitable for beginners) - Nina: About pain, last time Ajahn asked where is it? And I remember Ajahn asking before where are you? And then she explained no-where, no place, and it is the same for painful feeling. But it's really difficult because painful feeling can be so acute, and we think immediately "oh my arm is so painful", and it hurts, but it's only thinking and like Ajahn said, it is nowhere and in that connection she said in another talk that there is no Vietnam and no Thailand.

Harji: Nina just told that if there's "pain in my arm" then there is the story, thinking about my arm being hurt, but what satipatthana? Kayaanupassana-satipatthana? I'm not sure about that.

A. Sujin: At the moment of thinking of my arms' pain there is no understanding of pain, because there is the idea of my arm. Why do we listen to the teachings of the Buddha? To understand all realities, no matter when and where, in any situation. The truth of it, the absolute truth, of any reality that is there, but it's not known as it is. It's not only a reality but it's something.

That's why at moment when pain is there, how can that be the moment of understanding pain, without awareness? And how come for awareness to arise, without understanding? Impossible. But when it's time, ready to condition awareness just to arise and be aware of pain, at that moment there is no idea of my arms or my legs, but only understanding that characteristic which is pain, little by little, to know that at moment when it's there no one is there at all. Otherwise there must be the idea of some-where and some-thing all the time. That's why we cannot stop thinking of it at that moment as my arm's pain, but actually pain itself is not the arm or anything at all, it's not hardness, it's not softness but it's just a reality which is conditioned to arise and then fall away but the truth is not known yet until pañña, right understanding, lets go of the idea of self at that moment, no arm, no leg, but only pain is there. And then it begins to understand that pain is there, but how much understanding of pain is there? There can be doubt whether that is nama or rupa and so on. That is not the strong understanding with direct awareness yet, because it has to arise with understanding it as anatta, so anatta that so much pañña is there, to understand pain as only pain. But when there is the idea of pain in my arms, there is no understanding of pain because the idea of "my arm" is there.

That's why one begins to understand the characteristic of direct awareness with understanding [sati-sampajañña], or just thinking about [pain] with sati as "it's not me", only that. It's not thinking, but it has to be the moment of understanding pain, and there's no doubt about the characteristic of direct awareness at that moment, because it is aware of pain only, not "my pain". And by then when it appears, at that moment, no idea of where and when or what at all, because it's there, no name for it. That is the moment beginning to understanding pain as pain, from intellectual understanding, otherwise there's no condition for direct awareness and direct understanding of that reality which is pain.

So anything now can be object of understanding, at different levels. There can be thinking about it, as before we talked about it, no idea or thought about it at all. But when there is time to talk about it, there can be moments of understanding what is appearing, in words, and then it can condition the moment of direct understanding of that which has appeared now, which hasn't been the object of awareness yet, little by little, until there's no doubt about the direct awareness as sammasati.

And when talking about kayaanupassana-satipatthana, what is it? It's not the understanding of pain, because it's talking about the body, the rupa. That's why there must be direct understanding of each as different ones. At moment of pain it's not kayaanupassana-satipatthana, because pain cannot be the body. So it's just not thinking in words about what's that or what's said, but the reality that's pain is pain, not the body. So when there is moment of studying with direct awareness, little by little, it is vedanaanupassana-satipatthana not kayaanupassana-satipatthana. But it doesn't mean that you can change it, that you can try to have it, but to understand that moment, when you come to that term, vedanaanupassana-satipatthana, you know what it means, and when you come to kayaanupassana-satipatthana you know what that means, because at moment of understanding vedana, the feeling at that moment, it's not your arm, it's not anything, it's only feeling as feeling, no one there. And if someone said that it is kayaanupassana-satipatthana, it's wrong, because at moment of understanding feeling, how can it be body?

So it's not just understanding the word, but understanding vedana, and we use that word for feeling, we use the term vedana only for that, only that word, but you cannot change the characteristic of feeling to be body.