Āsava, so subtle that is not known that it's there already (2nd part)

-





Nina: I have another question, Ajahn, some time ago you explained that there is a difference between seeing and I see and we can repeat the words that I see is taking things for self but it takes really pañña to understand this, developed pañña. So maybe it helps if you would explain a little more about seeing and I see.

A. Sujin: Is there understanding of seeing as it is? When there's no understanding of seeing as it is, what is there which has no understanding? Ignorance is there, taking it instantly for āsava, I, bhāvāsava is there. That's why when we talk about the difference between āsava and upādāna at moment... in a day, no matter when, when the attachment does not appear to [be] something, eating food, different dishes, but before that, is there no attachment? Before realizing, knowing that there is wanting something there, before that there must be citta and cetasikas experiencing an object, and knowing what object it is, but what about: is there attachment? That's why when the attachment does not appear, even it's there, it is āsava. It seems like one doesn't have any attachment to anything at all, it's just there, just there, but in truth, when there's no understanding of that, there must be wrong understanding conditioned by ignorance and attachment to take it for I because: what is that? Experiencing is there, so that is me experiencing, I see, any moment.

So when we talk about lobha, by the way of upādāna or nīvarana or whatever, it's different from moment when it doesn't show up when it's there, even it's there, for sure. Because we can walk to this place, we can touch that, we can eat, we can do many things or whatever. No understanding of the attachment to that moment when attachment does not show up, that I want this thing, I like that, but it's there. That's why when there is no understanding of that which appears, there must be the idea, āsava, of I, bhāvāsava, and ditthāsava, and avijjāsava, or kāmāsava, because one is so used to take it for something, as usual, flowers, bed, patterns, and picture and so on, unknowingly.

It's [seems] just like nothing is there, but actually what is there is āsava. So one learns to understand that the word the Buddha taught is there in daily life, everyday life, but no one knows until the Buddha just taught about it. Different degrees, anusaya does not arise, but it's there, as condition for whatever is there, whatever is there, accumulated, oozing or seeping out to cling to that object, depending on what person is there, puthujjana, sotapanna, or anagami or what, but it's there unknown. So when there's no understanding of the truth of what is there, there must be akusala at a different level, which does not appear that it's there, that is āsava.

So in order to eradicate defilement or akusala, there must be the understanding of that, at that moment when there's understanding there's no condition for bhāvāsava or avijjāsava or ditthāsava, because understanding is there, they cannot arise together.

- N. So it's very difficult that it doesn't show up but it's still there, it's really developed pañña only that can understand.

- Su. Until pañña begins to understand it, and pañña develops on and on, with viriya and khanti not neglecting to have such pañña to know that it's the best thing in life, to understand that as it is. It's there, but why can't it be known as it is? how much ignorance and akusala must be there hindering the truth of it, and there cannot be anything which can eradicate it at all without understanding because ignorance is there, having more and more attachment more and more āsava, more and more kilesa, nīvarana and so on. That's why we can understand the words of the Teachings, no matter what about, anusaya, āsava, nīvarana, kilesa, upādāna, all there in one's life, to be known, as not self.

- N. It is very helpful, to explain about āsava this way.

- Su. And this is the way to understand what we take for I, how much ignorance. Just studying the word, remembering it, knowing the number, but what about now? It's there unknown, but when there is the clinging or wanting something, lobha is there to be known, even it's so very little, but it's more than just āsava, because it appears, it shows up. That's why for for those who would like to understand by questioning themselves, does āsava experience an object?

- N. But we don't know āsava really.

- Su. Because there is seeing, seeing sees, and that is there, as usual, it's there, like there's seeing, but no understanding that there is attachment already, because there is no idea of "I want this, I'm going to do that". In a day, āsava is there, but [after] few moments it can be known, as not āsava, for example, when we are going to do something, there can be understanding of wanting something to be done, to be taken, but when it's not that moment of wanting or liking to do anything, where is that? where is seeing and after that, what is that? Attachment is there already, and avijja, not understanding that is there, until there can be the understanding of the difference between moment of direct awareness, it's there, at that moment no āsava, otherwise there is āsava, in a moment, we have to consider for a moment, only one moment at a time, because āsava is akusala, it cannot arise with sati.

So at moment of direct awareness is the beginning of developing understanding the nature of that which is seen, at that moment there must be pañña which begins to develop, to understand the truth of that, that which experiences, without words, but the function, the moment when it experiences it's there, to be known, little by little, naturally. It's different from the moment when there is no direct awareness at all. So, why do we have to understand the difference between the nāma and the rūpa, that which can experience and that which cannot experience? Because they are there, but no awareness, no understanding to be aware of it at all, but from hearing again and again and again and again, pañña begins to understand little by little, until it conditions the moment of direct awareness, but pañña in the very beginning is so very weak, but it's there, different from the moment when it's there without any attention or awareness at all, just like moments of āsava. Even attachment is there, it's so subtle that is not known that it's there already, until it appears: "I'd like this, I want to do this, I'll stretch out my arm", that can be known, as there must be attachment to condition such deed or action.

So one begins to understand how much ignorance is there, unknown, when there's no understanding of the truth. And what about sañña? It marks and remembers, wrongly, with the idea of self, [for] so long long time ago, until now, as ditthāsava, before it can be eliminated, little by little, until it is absolutely eradicated, never to arise again in samsara, at any moment. That's why only pañña is there, developing, with right understanding, there cannot be any wish for this or that to arise, to be stronger to that degree or this degree. All depends on conditions, that is the understanding more about no I, otherwise who is there, who wishes and wants? The I is there. That's why each word should be studied carefully, that it's now, and they are different. When there's understanding is different from moments when there's no understanding, thinking about other things and just a glimpse or just a moment of thinking about that. Different degrees of understanding is there, little by little.

Otherwise what can be condition to understand what is there in normal life, daily life, everyday life? They are all conditioned realities, and it's not there at all as something, anatta, but wrong understanding takes it for something permanent, as I, as such and such thinking about this and that, how to solve this and that, goes on and on with the idea of self. That's why it's not so important to remember how many āsavas and how many upādānas, but to understand what is it, is it there now?

- N. This is all very helpful, Ajahn, to be reminded like this about the āsavas.

  • Audio of the entire discussion:

Video image: Detail of the railing of Bharhut stupa