Guarding, ordinary morals and ethics and the absolute Truth (2nd part)

-



2nd part - 40m (1st part here)

A. Sujin: Each word of the Buddha is so true, no matter how long ago he taught it, all together for 45 years, so many words... Each word is so true because the truth is that, each moment must be different from the other moment, by different conditions. Nothing can arise without its proper conditions. That's why understanding this is understanding that that is a moment of conditioned reality, no one there, no matter in what sutta.

Sometimes there can be just moderation in eating, other times overeating, all depends on conditions, no matter whether that person understands the truth or not. So it doesn't mean that at moment of not overeating there is sati, it can be the idea of self seeing the danger of overeating.

Nobody can condition anything to arise at all right now, just now, all appears by conditions. But, is there any understanding of the truth of what is now appearing, no matter when? So, the best thing in life is to understand the truth of what is there as it is, without the Teachings of the Buddha, no understanding at all of that.

So no matter what he talked about, it's there, including the truth of each one, each word, as not self, as only a reality. That's why without careful study we cannot understand the point of studying the truth now. It is just to let go ignorance and wrong understanding about what is now appearing. Seeing the food as the food, what is that? Understanding or no understanding? Is there any understanding while eating any food? Or no understanding of whatever is there at all.

So, guarding what? What [realities] are there, taught about, in that sutta? Guarding what? The food? The taste, or what? Hot, sweet or what? Not big mouthful or what? So, what is there to guard? Guarding to not overeat or what? Only just the word guarding, at each moment, seeing hearing smelling, through what doorway? What does it mean? Without understanding, can there be guarding at any moment of eating, looking, speaking, thinking, through each doorway? What is the most precious moment? It's to understand the truth of what is there as it is, not self, not anything, not food. So what is that, its absolute truth? Without that which can experience, can there be such a thing? To understand the nature which is conditioned to arise, to experience. When there is no understanding, no guard. So when there is the understanding of the truth of Reality as not self, there can be a moment of being aware of whatever is there as it is.

To understand the absolute truth of that very moment, is the meaning of guarding, in order to understand its truth. That's why the Buddha taught about any time and any moment, any object, no matter what, eating much or less or whatever, is there by conditions. And that is the guarding and understanding of whatever is there, in daily life, as not self.

So, we don't just simply say: sati is aware. What is that? Only the word, and what is sati? If there's no understanding of the truth of sati, that it is a reality, conditioned to arise and be aware, of wholesome moments, there must be the idea that the Teachings of the Buddha are just about the way to live.

Vincent: Ajahan, about the way to live?

Su. Living, just living, no understanding. Living at moment of eating, to be such and such, not too much and so on, and seeing and on and on, just like ordinary morals and ethics, but actually it's the absolute truth. And because of so much ignorance is accumulated, that's why we keep on talking about the moment, what is there, to understand the truth of it little by little. That is the moment of understanding the Teachings of the Buddha and his great virtues. He taught about the truth of everything in life, no matter what life, each moment. So, don't think that we have enough understanding of the word that we've heard, like sati, or seeing or hearing, liking, being satisfied, pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling. What are they? What's their truth? The absolute truth of them. No matter is pleasant feeling at moment of eating or seeing or hearing, they are only that which arise to experience, no matter when, yesterday today tomorrow, previous life today and next life and on and on. Realities are realities, they cannot be changed at all. And the absolute truth of everything is that it cannot be taken for anything at all, because it's not there anymore, just arises and falls away.

So at moment of eating, at moment of dressing, and moment of reading, they are all the same, there must be that which arises and experiences different objects at different moments. And when there's no understanding, just enjoying that, no guarding. And how come the arising of guarding? Is that moment real? Can it be right, that moment of guarding? And no guarding at all? By conditions. So we learn to understand each word, to understand the difference of this one from the other one, so that we don't mix them up, at moment of eating, looking, drawing or whatever, of what is there as different realities. Okay, guarding the eyes, its object and so on, and no guarding at all, what is there?

Each moment is real, but the moment is different, by different conditions. No understanding of the guarding as: what is it? but hearing the word "guarding" and guard, is that right? And this is the subtlety of reality which is now, as the Buddha had enlightened and taught. Just the word guarding doesn't mean that we can guard, but its truth, what conditions are there, to condition its arising to guard. Talking about guarding the eye, the eye-door, is there any moment of guarding the eye-door, which is now seeing, and the object? So, it doesn't mean just follow the word, but understand the truth and understand the difference between each one, moment with guarding and moment without guarding at all. And what is there at moment of no guarding what is now appearing? The moment of not guarding is real, it's true, what is that? And is it now at this moment, or not? To study Dhamma is to understand what is there as it is, now. Is there guarding of the the eye-door now? Everyone can answer, because it's so true, to be truthful to the truth. Is there any guarding of what is now appearing? The answer, please. This is studying Dhamma, to understand what is there, from the very beginning, now. Where's the right understanding, to answer? It's true, what is the answer? Is there any moment of guarding, to understand the truth of that which is now appearing?

V. No :).

Su. Is that the answer? Your answer or the your friends' answer? :)

V. It's my answer.

Su. So, what about the others?

V./Tao: No.

Su. Why not?

V./T. Because the guarding is the moment of patipatti, now it's just thinking about the idea.

Su. What is patipatti?

V./T. It's the level of pañña which can directly know the object, the dhamma.

Su. So, is the moment of guarding patipatti?

V./T. Yes.

Su. And what performs that function, guarding?

V./T. Pañña.

Su. Without sati?

V./T. There must be sati accompanying pañña.

Su. So, they arise together, but sati cannot understand, but it guards, and pañña understands because of sati guarding, and they cannot arise when they are not [strong] enough for their arising. So, it has to begin to understand its truth as not self from the very beginning, to let go of ignorance and not guarding the reality. That's why all depends on understanding, because only the understanding can let go clinging and ignorance to whatever is there.

As there is the understanding of this truth, there can be more time to study and seeing the precious moment of the moment of understanding from hearing, considering, reading or whatever, about that which is now appearing. We've heard the word sati, is sati real?

V./T. It's real.

Su. When does it arise?

V./T. At moments of kusala is there.

Su. Okay, and what is that kusala? What is the moment of kusala?

V./T. It's the beautiful mind, dāna sīla and bhāvana.

Su. Why is it beautiful?

V./T. Because the citta is gentle at that time, there's no defilement, it's kusala.

Su. Okay, can it be known now?

V./T. If it appears, if it's all right it can be known.

Su. Is it arising now?

V./T. No, not at this moment.

Su. Because that it's only like understanding the word, intellectual understanding, but the truth of it does not appear as it is, just one by one, because there's so many many, uncountable nāma and rūpa realities. We've heard many times about the words nāma and rūpa, and nāma is that which experiences, arises to experience, and rūpa cannot experience anything. This is what we all know about, is that enough?

V./T. No, it's not enough.

Su. We know about sati, the guardian, but is it the moment of understanding sati or just thinking about it? Realities are realities, they cannot be changed, each one, but the reality which experiences is that which is not known, it's taken for I all the time. That's why before understanding anything more clearly there should be the understanding that even that which experiences now is not clearly experienced or known yet. It's there, but without understanding sati cannot be aware of that object as: it is there only as an experiencing reality. So it's only just understanding that it's there, it's a reality, it has its function like that, but at the very moment no understanding of that which experiences, even one.

When anger is there because it's conditioned to arise, it can be known as: it's anger, but no understanding it as just a reality which is conditioned, no I no one at all. At moment when anger is there, there can be the understanding of that characteristic, that it cannot be changed, it has to be such characteristic, but no understanding of the truth, that is only a reality which experiences. Anger arises, it experiences an object, it dislikes that object, but no understanding anger as just that which has its characteristic as disliking. We don't have to call it anger or irritation or whatever is there, but the truth is that it's a reality which experiences an object, it's not known.

So, no matter what is there, it appears as it is, but not as no one and no self. That's why the first clear understanding, the first vipassana-ñāna, there has to be no doubt about the reality which experiences. At that moment the other thing which cannot experience is not the object, so it's so clear about that, only one, that which experiences, no shape and no form. And when feeling is there, it shows up to be clear object for pañña of that degree, no need to call it anything, because it cannot be that which experiences, it feels different realities, as usual, but the right understanding can directly experience the truth of no one there. So we learn about feeling, it feels, it's not necessary to tell anyone, because it's there when it's there, and everyone knows that it's pleasant or unpleasant, it feels that way, but that which is known is that it's conditioned to arise just to be that, and then gone.

So when it's clear understanding as vipassana-ñāna, each reality can appear, not at will, but by conditions, no selection, but pañña which experience the truth as no one, it's only different, that which experiences, no word, and no doubt about the nature of that which is just that, you don't have to name or call it anything at all, but the characteristic, the reality which feels means that it experiences what is there, and whatever nāma and rūpa appear as they are, one by one.

And without pañña, can there be guarding moments to understand the truth as we are talking about? So, what is the meaning of just the word guarding the eyes ears nose tongue body and whatever is there? Without deep understanding one takes it for: just guard it, it's there! But no understanding as the Buddha had enlightened and taught, and this is the difference between the words of the Buddha and the words of the other teachers who haven't enlightened the truth.

So the Teaching is so deep because the reality is so deep, at moment whatever appears, it arises and falls away, only one at a time to be known. That's why sati is not samadhi, is not pañña, and there can be the understanding of each one, that there must be conditions for whatever arises, no matter different levels of sati and pañña. Is there any question?

To be truthful to the truth, this is parami. What about guarding now, or no guarding? By conditions, and without more and more understanding, more and more confidence of the truth, there cannot be conditions for guarding. So is there sati in a day, more or less, little or very little, or what about the understanding, because sati arises with all kinds of wholesome moments, but the guarding moment is not like other moments without pañña. So understanding the Teachings of the Buddha is to understand whatever is there, as it's so very true, absolutely true. Is there attachment now? Please, answer.

V./T. Yes, there is attachment.

Su. Does it appear?

V./T. If Ajahn didn't ask, there was no thinking about attachment, and as was asked, then there's a reminder that it's there.

Su. But, just only thinking about it. As long as it doesn't appear as just a reality which has such clinging characteristic. Why does one just sit and concentrate on an object?

V./T. Because of lobha.

Su. Yes, and ignorance. And can lobha and ignorance let go wrong understanding and ignorance? Doing that it's not by the words of the Buddha, no understanding of anatta, no understanding of reality, no understanding of ignorance and attachment. So sati and pañña guard, not to have lobha being attached to wrong understanding. So, sati is the guardian. When is there all unwholesome realities cannot arise, and when it's at different, higher level, it guards to be aware, guarding the moment, not to go astray, otherwise pañña cannot understand that, without sati.

That's why in tipitaka it's not cetana-patthāna it's not vitakka-patthāna, it's not any-reality-patthāna, only satipatthāna. So there are three meanings of satipatthāna: patthāna is any object which is the object of sati, one meaning: kāya, vedana, citta, dhamma, everything. At that very moment, when sati is aware of it, that object is satipatthāna, the base for pañña to develop. And sati at that moment guards the object, it does not at the other moment, like the moment of dāna or ordinary sīla. And the last meaning is that it's the fourth noble truth, because it's the way the Buddha and all his sāvakas follow or develop. Not going the other way at all, because the other way is not the way to understand the truth.

So there should be more understanding and clearer understanding about each word, because it concerns each reality as it's now appearing. For example, seeing is now, without right understanding there is no condition to guard it as it is, to understand. With understanding there can be a little bit more understanding of the truth of that which has appeared and of the guardian, the sati, to be able to develop the understanding of no self in that which appears, as so very simple and ordinary in life, each day. So very natural because each reality has its own nature, to be such and such, even at this moment. Is this the Teaching of the Buddha? If it's not about this, to understand whatever is there, is that the Teaching of the Buddha? So, only a Buddha, who had experienced or enlightened the truth, can teach us about whatever is there now, the great teacher. When there is the understanding of the words of the Enlightened One, there can be the understanding of what is true and what is not true, and what word is the word which brings about the understanding, or ignorance. And that moment is conditioned to understand the truth, more and more and more, and we call that that reality pañña or vijja. Even we don't call it, it understands the truth, little by little, until it can become enlightening, the absolute truth as ariya-sacca. Otherwise what's the use of just listening and remember the word and try to find out, but the reality is not known, because no further understanding and more confidence of the benefit of the precious moment of the Teachings is to directly understand what is there when it appears. So to study Dhamma is to study the truth of what is there now as it is. Is there any question?

V./T. The question is about sati patthāna, it's called sati, but at the moment of awarness either of rūpa or citta or vedana of any dhamma, pañña must be there, right?

Su. Otherwise, how could sati arise to be aware of that object? Like now, there is the object which is experienced, so, is there sati?


  • Audio of the entire discussion: