Understanding, from the moment which listen carefully

-



Sundara: And also, Tan Ajahn, at the beginning you were referring to the four saṃvejanīyaṭṭhānāni (Mahāparinibbānasutta, DN16), the four holy places that often are a condition for samvega, or sometimes it's translated as we know as sense of urgency, I saw it translated recently as a sense of zealousness or can inspire a sense of urgency.

A. Sujin: Can that be only an example?

That's why when pañña is there, it can understand anything, and understanding what is said is just only one part. Not only that moment in samsara, every moment, because it's impossible to talk about, even right now, what are there are different from just a moment ago, different citta and different cetasikas, but when pañña is there, it can understand what is samvega, it can be thinking about anything and understand that as it's so samvega, it's gone completely. Pañña only can understand that, that it's samvega, not the object for desire at all. It's only that which is gone, on no one at all. That's why what is there, in Tipitaka, is only some parts of the whole universe. Pañña is there, anywhere anytime, of any object, at any moment.

So even thinking about āyatana it's not just now, what about other moments? It's the same, it depends on what it is the example for thinking about it, as such situation, and there are so many different situations all the time.

Sundara: Yes, and I noticed, Ajahn, earlier on you mentioned the word ehipassiko which is as you know a reminder, it's an invitation to investigate the present reality.

A. Sujin: Also opanayiko, just not the others, but it's here and now.

That's why each word of the Buddha should be object of understanding, wise reflecting on the truth of it.

That's why we say that, among all wholesomeness, right understanding is the best.

Sundara: Yes, that's absolutely true Ajahn, no question about that. And it's so easy to forget and overlook because of our ignorance and our desire to have more understanding and we know that that can't be pushed. There has to be the right soil in place at the beginning and unless that right soil is there, it will be hopeless. So I'm so grateful we can listen so regularly to you these days Ajahn, and I really appreciate that, and I know, we all do, the time that you invest with us it's very very precious to us all, many thanks.

A. Sujin: That's why we begin or we understand more about wise considering, or any moment of understanding. And without wise considering, reflecting, can there be the understanding of what is there now?

Sundara: No Ajahn, absolutely not. We know there has to be the right considering, and even that has to be considered correctly, I know, because anybody can say that, have right considering or consider correctly. And perhaps I could ask you that Ajahn, when when you say that, consider carefully, because it seems to me that you can still consider incorrectly. So it must be the considering carefully, in the right way, so how do we get that one correct?

A. Sujin: That's why the benefit of Dhamma discussion is so very good, because it conditions more understanding little by little and deeper and deeper of the truth of that which appears: it's not as it appears, even it's there, but only pañña can understand it.

Jonothan: Yes, the considering has to occur naturally, not not be a deliberate kind of thing that one does because one thinks that it's a necessary part of the development of the path, and I like the term reflecting in, because it has more of a connotation of occurring unconsciously as we say in conventional speech. Although it doesn't matter what word one uses but the great benefit of the live discussion is that it conditions that kind of reflection, reflecting both at the time and later.

A. Sujin: Please help me to understand the difference between the word reflecting and considering, is there any difference?

Sukin: When we hear consider people think in terms of doing something deliberately, whereas reflection, nobody says I'm going to reflect, usually when they refer to reflection it's something that just happened, so that's what I think what Jon was trying to say.

A. Sujin: And what about at moment of hearing the word, is there no considering or no reflecting?

Jonothan: There is at the time obviously, and then it can condition considering or reflecting at a later time also, but definitely at the time of when one is engaging in discussion there is considering or reflecting at the time.

A. Sujin: Of hearing, at moment of hearing too, at moment of listening.

Just right now, at this moment we're talking, is it reflecting or considering about what is heard very very quickly? Otherwise, there can be thinking about other things, not about that which is heard.

That's why I think that the word does not matter at all as long as it can bring about the understanding of what is there. Without that there cannot be understanding of what is heard at all. But when we talk more precisely, what cetasika is there, not just only the terms of those moments, but what about the cetasika and what about the citta and what about the function? Unknown. But the moment of understanding, no matter what word we use, it can condition moments of listening carefully, listening carefully and remembering the word which is heard, only that at that very moment, not thinking about or remembering other things, but only remembering the word, the meaning of that. So there can be what we call the understanding, from the moment that listens carefully.

Jonothan: And I think in the suttas it talks about listening with eager ears and that implies I think a level of understanding that one appreciates very much the value of hearing about the nature of the reality of the present moment.

A. Sujin: That's why, when there are enough conditions, anyone can become sotapanna while listening, or after listening, or later on, after that. So it's a reality which, no matter what word we use, conditions the understanding, because of not forgetting the meaning of it, not just hearing the sound, but the meaning of that which is heard.

Sundara: I think that reflection goes deeper than just to consider but they're both quite close it seems to me.

A. Sujin: And what about that very moment of listening right now, is there sañña of the meaning of the word? Otherwise can there be understanding, without sañña, of only that very moment?

That's why no matter what word is used, it depends on understanding, in different languages, even in one's own language there are many words used for just a single reality, so the understanding is the most important thing. If we try to [stay] fixed on the word, it cannot condition understanding of what is meant, at moment of hearing, listening to the truth, if the sañña remembers other things, at that moment there cannot be understanding of the meaning of that word at all. That's why, even while listening, the sañña has to remember or marking, at that very moment, such object, not another object. And what one would say depends on one's own understanding. If one understands this word clearly, we can use this word, if one understands this better we can use other words, but the same meaning is understood, from what? From what is there at moment of hearing and listening, otherwise there cannot be the understanding of that word at all. So, no matter what we call it, the characteristic is there.

I think that we cannot use every word that the Buddha said, because sometimes we use just one word, as we think, as we can understand or we can remember it, but the reality, at that moment, has to be what the Buddha taught, to understand it.

Sundara: People don't even understand the word dhamma let alone samvega or many other words that we use and if we don't understand truly what dhamma means then there is going to be misunderstanding

A. Sujin: Just like the word dhamma, as you said, one word, same word, dhamma, but it depends on understanding, and what conditions such understanding is what we are talking about, no matter we use reflection or considering or other words, but there is [studying] the characteristic which is there, carefully wisely, of that reality, at moment of listening, so that it can condition more understanding when there is more listening or thinking or considering, no matter when, at the very moment or after that, the same characteristic, but we can use different words. Like dhamma, people use it in different ways too, in Thai language.

Even samvega, some may have different ideas about it, by translation or by such words, but what about the characteristic of that, if it's not known we're misunderstanding the Teachings of the Buddha.

Sundara: Absolutely, Ajahn, that will always happen, and of course I think these different words will be used in different contexts, in different situations and they will have slightly different flavors to them, but ultimately they will be referring to the reality that appears and if that's forgotten then that so easily leads to misunderstanding.

A. Sujin: That's why we need the Teachings of the Buddha from his enlightenment. For example, just go back to the word food, as much as we can understand without the Teachings it's only the food we eat, but what about the āhara paccaya (nutriment condition)? No idea at all, until hearing the Teachings about the absolute truth. Even they are citta and cetasikas and rūpas, but so many differences between each word, like in what way we are talking about, āhara for what? āhara for vinññana, or āhara for body and so on? All depends on the understanding of the truth of realities, which is so very complex when there is no understanding, because they are there together, but what about just one, only one at a time there, in order to understand that what are there are not [there] as we think, taking it for the whole, but actually each different one is different. That's why no one there at all, to understand truth, that without such understanding it's impossible to let go the idea of self at all, impossible. So it depends on pañña which understands the meaning of the reality, not just the word, because the word just represents the truth, depending on how much understanding is there of such word, in English. In Thai, I can understand Dhamma in Thai better than I can speak English, but it depends on understanding, no matter it's only in broken English, but it's all right when it can be understood, its truth.

Sukin: And Ajahn, you have done a lot for so many people.

A. Sujin: That's why it's not the word but the understanding, the reality which conditions understanding is what we are talking about, no matter we use the word reflecting, considering and other words, but it's there, a reality which is very necessary at moment of listening to understand the meaning of the word.

Sundara: And I would say, Tan Ajahn, that the way you express Dhamma in English to me is absolutely brilliant, I find it so helpful, so incisive, so clear. It's very very helpful to me and I know I'm speaking for many other people also.

A. Sujin: That's why we talk about that which conditions understanding, even it's not the perfect word, in grammar or anything, but that can condition, and the understanding is not conditioned by the word but from understanding what is the meaning that the word represents, that's all. Different realities, so many realities are there at that very moment, and we use different words to try to help the other to understand the words of the Buddha, so very deep. That's why even the word samvega, no matter what word we use, right or wrong grammar or whatever it is, but it can bring about the understanding of the truth, that's the point. And what is there is what we say, without sañña which remembers the word which is said, so that it can [be] considered or reflected upon wisely, different reality, and then pañña is there, from such and such conditions, right now, it's always now. The point is to understand the truth of the reality right now, when it appears.

So at moment of thinking, considering, reflecting on what is heard, at that moment right understanding understands that which is there, not the word but the truth. For example, hardness now, it's there, no word, but what is heard about it conditions the understanding of the nature of it, that it is only hard, but when we don't think about its nature we think about what is there as something permanent because it appears by nimitta, the succession of the rapidity of the arising and falling of that conditions the shape and form we are taking for something. So what can be known is nimitta of what is there which is now arising and falling away in split second, unexpectedly, cannot imagine how fast it is because it's gone all the time, unknown. And this is what is meant by darkness, even in light, seeing many things, not understanding the truth, how dark it is, darker than anything.

So listen and then consider or reflect wisely on that which is heard, otherwise there cannot be understanding of what is heard, which represents what is there now, as a reality.

This moment or that very moment can be known as how much understanding of it. Did you hear something?

Sundara: Yes I did Ajahn, I can hear it very clearly, you're speaking very clearly and I always appreciate the reminders that you give us. I think that you are very very very clear and the way you convey Dhamma, as I said, I think we are very blessed, being able to listen to you.

A. Sujin: If there is no understanding, can there be a samvega of what the Buddha taught, what the Buddha talked about as example?

Sundara: No Ajahn there cannot be, there are many different conditions and many different levels of samvega.

A. Sujin: [It's] only that which is conditioned to arise and fall away, because even we are now understanding what samvega means, but different thinking, by conditions, at each moment, that is Dhamma, no one.


  • Audio of the entire discussion:

Video image: Mahakapi Jataka 407, The great monkey, (Bharhut)