Paññatti, coming together as something

(64m)

A. Sujin: I think that we live in the world of concept, right? Without concept, how could we live? But how come, concept? What is it? Without the absolute realities there cannot be anything at all, but when there is reality arising, and it arises and falls away so very rapidly, to the point that it cannot be known, but what can be known is the nimitta. So we begin to understand, little by little, how come to have paññatti (concept), because there must be the absolute truths: citta, cetasikas and rupas, and they arise and fall away in split seconds, and what is seen is only the nimitta of each [of these]. Because one [moment] cannot be seen or experienced at all, and that is the absolute truth. So when they arise, so very rapidly, what appears is the nimitta, the mark or the sign of something, even it comes down to just very little, like hardness, it's still something, as something it's nimitta, that which is made known as: it's hard.

So we live in the world of nimitta, at moment of seeing we know where to go, where to sit on and so on, all nimittas. That's why nimitta is that which comes together, and then it makes [itself] known as something all the time, but we can also understand the absolute truth, which is the cause of that: without the absolute truth there'd be nothing, but there must be that which no one can make it to arise but there are conditions for its arising, and it falls away. So we begin to understand a little better that actually it's not a permanent thing at all, that there must be many different realities arising together and appearing as something, that we take it for something all the time, because not seeing the arising and falling away, not knowing that actually before that there was nothing, and then something, and then nothing, so very rapidly.

So the world appears as shape and form, nimitta, and it makes itself known as something, a snake for example. Is that which is seen? Same color as other color, maybe yellow or white or black, but we take it for a snake, or for a frog, different paññatti, because that is made known as a different thing, that's all.

Harji: But Tan Ajahn, even before we think of snake even when we say yellow or white or blue, this is already all just concept, right?

Su. There must be nimitta and then thinking about it as something, like a snake or a bottle, it is made known as "it is something", to be used: shoes, spoon, fork and so on. Only different colors, nimitta, making it different, by shape and form, and the idea, taking it for something, is paññatti. So paññatti is so very common, because there must be mind-door processes after the sense-door process, to come together as something, permanent, but to be used differently.

There must be nimitta because of the rapidity of the arising and falling away of all dhammas, which is made known as something, paññatti. Without nimitta how can there be paññatti, without paramattha dhamma how can there be nimitta? But when there is paramattha dhamma and the succession of the arising falling, so fast. So it becomes nimitta, shape and form, even the same color, the shape is different, it forms up some thing like "snake" and "frog", that is paññatti, even it's only that which is seen only, but different shape and form, different material, different dhātus (elements) together and they are attha paññatti, even we don't name it, speak it out, but we take it for something different from the other, that is paññatti, that's all. Even the tiny ant has paññatti.

H. Yes, and no one can be away from nimitta that is reality, even one's enlightened already, one would still have thinking and all that but no wrong view.

Su. And the mind-door processes take the nimitta as something.

H. It doesn't matter whether us or the Buddha or anyone else or other ariyans, they still think, that is the nature of dhammas, right?

Su. Even the Buddha knew who's Ananda and who Sariputta, so very common. As long as there are paramattha dhammas, absolute truths, there must be nimitta, and there must be paññatti for different nimitta, it's only the object of thinking, because seeing just arises to see only that, no nimitta, no anything, because it just arises to see only, not to think.