Experiencing showing up as something, feeling

-


[A. Sujin] And what is the important [one] now?

[T. Tam] Yes sometimes I think it's pleasant feeling we are always looking for it.

[A. Sujin] That's why when everything is so pleasant, the source or the main faculty is that which arises and feels, so any kind of feeling is very important. The importance of what is there is indriya, so great, like without it that moment cannot be such and the other realities just follow it because when everything is fine, it's so pleasant by that kind of feeling. So, is any kind of feeling not important? That's why we learn to understand what's meant by indriya, the main faculty, or it's so very important, right then.

And at the moment of pleasant feeling or indifferent feeling. What is there too as indriya? But different indriya, what else is there as indriya? At moment when feeling is indriya, what else is indriya? At that very moment? It is also citta because citta performs its function and it is the main faculty [of] experiencing, the chief, experiencing the object clearly, but it does not feel. So the feeling which arise together is the main or indriya, in its own way, its own function because it feels. And when it's understanding is it not indriya? When it understands? And there are many degrees of right understanding, so there are many words for different degrees of indriya. Just learn to understand that each one is not self, each one is only a conditioned reality, [it] just arises and falls away. So I think now there can be the understanding of the nature of indriya, not just the word. Isn't sati indriya too? Yes. When?

[Tam B] When it arises.

[A. Sujin] Okay, and when it is satibala, is it indriya as well? But is it at same level, as strong?

[Tam B] Stronger, stronger level.

[A. Sujin] There's the word satibala too, not just satindriya. So we can understand what's meant by indriya because sati which is not satipatthāna, can it be aware with understanding of that which is now appearing? That's why just understand that, what reality can be indriya, when it's time itself is there as different ones, different levels, its degrees. Is satibala the same as satisambojjhanga? That's why when it's there it's known as it is, when it's not that level yet it cannot be known until it's there to be known, when it's there, only. To make it clear that actually no one can make anything arise at all. So it's wrong to have meditation center and going there and trying to do something, just to understand, but it cannot be understanding because no intellectual understanding as the base, as conditions to understand what is there. And right understanding understands what's right and what's wrong, so it's the indriya.

[Tam B] So it is quite clear that at the moment of having pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling they are leaders but when the moment is neither unpleasant nor pleasant feeling it seems to be not obvious at all, so in what way it is a leader at that moment?

[A. Sujin] Can indifferent feeling arise with akusala citta? Yes It is indifferent when it arises with kusala, but it is different from akusala [feeling] which arises with akusala, so when it arises with pañña, indifferent feeling, and when at that moment there is pañña with pleasant feeling it's different, right? That's why we talk about different bhūmi or levels of citta. For example, kāmāvacara citta (sensous-level consciousness) is different from rūpāvacara citta (lower jhāna-level consciousness), from from arūpāvacara citta (higher jhāna-level consciousness), and lokuttara citta (beyond all world-levels consciousness). For the jhāna, the first, second and third, with pleasant [feeling] and the fourth and the fifth is with indifferent feeling, what is better? Even feeling is different by the cetasikas which arise with it, at different moments, to be indifferent feeling, in what stage? When it's ordinary kusala, what is better? Indifferent feeling with kusala or pleasant feeling with kusala? And how can anyone compare the pleasant feeling at level of kāmāvacara and the pleasant feeling at level of rūpāvacara?

And what about the feeling of the fifth jhāna? and the indifferent feeling which arises with kāmāvacara? Much different, it can be known only when it's there. And when it's not there how can anyone imagine about the difference, which [one] is higher? As they are quite different there can be the understanding of their difference, little by little. And the best of all is understanding that there is no one and no thing at all, even feeling just arises and falls away instantly, all the time. Just to learn to know that no matter what is there is taken for something or I all the time because not understanding the truth of it.

So, understanding will condition moment of letting go of the idea of self and ignorance little by little. And what is the chief to let go? Citta and pañña, different ways or manners. And they are all there from moment to moment, unknown until we learn to understand it little by little. Okay, what is there, what is there, what is there? Not understanding anything but it's exactly the same. So, the main difference is that which can experience and that which cannot experience, no matter it's ignorance or attachment or right understanding or kindness or whatever it is, it is just that which experiences. And is that which always arise and experience what is there known now? Does it show up? That's why, in order to understand what's meant by that which experiences, it's this moment because it's there as the chief of experiencing what is there. Because the other realities, the other cetasikas, are not the chief in experiencing the object which is now appearing. Even feeling or memory and attachment or aversion is there, as it is not the chief of experiencing, but it experiences the object, but with its characteristic, being attached instantly, or remembering instantly or whatever is there, just arising and performing its function. So at the moment of the attachment is now appearing what is known is only that which attaches, not that which experiences, right?

That's why everything should be directly known as it is, as they are different. But it's not clear when it's not direct awareness at all because even direct awareness is conditioned by right understanding, otherwise it cannot be directly aware of whatever is now as it is. It's so natural and the understanding of different moment with awareness or without awareness, especially direct awareness of every object, directly, there. Right now hardness is so hard, but what about the understanding of it as not anything at all, and when it's not there it's gone forever, and this is understanding a moment in a moment, only one moment at a time, to understand the truth that it's there only when it appears, and when it does not appear it's not there. So, where's the I, where's the thing, [still] around? Not at all. Just in memory, wrong sañña or right sañña? Sañña vipallasa, that it's still there, or anicca sañña: it's not there anymore. So, it doesn't matter what word is there, just to understand the characteristic of it, which appears, that can be known. So at the moment when attachment appears, it's not the citta which experiences the object appearing. It's there any moment in life but it's not known because it does not appear as it is.

[T. Tam] Ajahn, lobha and dosa, why they are not indriya?

[A. Sujin] Would it mean that everything is indriya, by that way?

[T. Tam] Yes, that's why I'm confused.

[A. Sujin] Because you think of the word, but in reality when we think of what is there as the chief, the main faculty or it's there, very important. For example, that which experiences, see, it's not attachment, it's not ignorance, but if it's not there how can there be anything appearing now? They are important in their own way, like other sankhara dhammas or cetasikas, but what is there, like phassa? what is it as paccaya? Is it indriya? Or it is by way of being āhāra, conditioning the other realities to arise and experience that which it contacts, just that. It is as it is by its nature, like phassa, it's only that, just contacts. Can it understand? Can it feel or whatever as very important? Very important, cannot be missed at all. What is greater, ignorance or right understanding? Right understanding can understand and can ignorance understand anything as it is?

So, there can be the understanding of what is there, when there is understanding, it's so great, it can understand that which wasn't known or understood before. If you think that everything is indriya, it's not why we talk about indriya because they would be all the same, but now we are talking about the difference between each one by the way it is, just to understand the difference, what is important, [of] very great importance, that it can perform the function of understanding that which is now appearing. It doesn't matter if you don't understand it as what is indriya and what is not indriya, just understand what is there and by then there can be a little more understanding of the difference by different ways or aspects. What about attachment, or tanha, without feeling, what is there? Anger, irritation, without feeling? So at that moment what is the chief? Experiencing showing up as something, feeling, something. Compared to no understanding of what is there at all from birth, every day and moment of beginning to understand the truth of it, it's so much different. Can there be the beginning of the importance, the faculty or whatever we call it, indriya?

  • Audio of the entire discussion:

Video image:Railing and stairs of the Great stupa, Sanchi