Results of kamma, life is that which experiences the object (part 1)

-





[Roti] Ajahn, my question is what do you mean by life, anything that it's not bhavanga?

[A. Sujin] So now we're talking about the other citta which does not perform the function of bhavanga, right?

So, what we take for life is that which experiences the object and rupa conditioned by that which experiences the object, too. So what is life? Without that which experiences, can it be life? Door, cupboard, bed, window, is it life or it's not life? It cannot experience anything at all.

[Roti] So bhavanga is not life...

[A. Sujin] It is, because it is citta. The kamma conditions vipaka and vipaka is the word for that which experiences an object. Even kamma conditions the rupa, like the hadaya vatthu and bhava rupa at moment of birth, but it cannot experience the object. That's why when we talk about life, it's that which experiences the object, including that which is conditioned by that which can experience an object, [for] which we use the word kamma. So kamma produces the vipaka citta and the rupa, as kammaja rupa, but what is taken for vipaka cannot be rupa because the rupa cannot experience the object.

[Roti] So rupa is not like, only citta right

[A. Sujin] It depends, because in the world of nama and rupa that [rupa] which is conditioned by kamma is different from the rupa which is not conditioned by kamma. That's why the rupa can arise, as it has the kamma as its condition, or citta or utu or ahara. And that which is conditioned by kamma must have jivintindriya rupa to appear as that which is a living thing, but can it experience or it cannot experience? That's why there are two kinds of jivintindriya. One is that (nama) which keeps life going on and the other, the rupa which is conditioned by kamma, is different from the rupa which cannot experience anything. For example, the doll looks very much like human being, but still there is no jivintindriya to make it as a living thing. That's why when we talk about a word we have to be exact or precise, for example, when we use the word vipaka, it is the result of kamma, and kamma is that which experiences the object, citta and cetasikas and citta and so on, but when it produces that which can experience the object, that which can experience the object is citta and cetasikas. That's why there are vipaka citta and vipaka cetasikas, but for rupa, it cannot experience the object, so it is the result of kamma, but it is not vipaka because it cannot experience anything. Just talking about the truth of that reality, the nature of it which cannot be changed.

[Roti] Vipaka cannot experience? Is that what you were saying, Ajahn?

[A. Sujin] No, vipaka is citta and cetasikas, but not the rupa. The rupa, no matter what rupa it is, it cannot experience an object at all because it's the rupa, why it's rupa? Because it cannot experience an object. And the nama, they are of two kinds: the citta, the chief of experiencing the characteristics of the object, clearly, and the cetasikas arising with citta. Cetasikas also experience the object, but not as citta because citta is the chief in experiencing the characteristic of the object clearly.

And the other reality, the cetasikas, which also arises with citta, experience the same object, but since citta experiences the characteristic of the object clearly, the other reality, the cetasikas, like, dislike that, depending on its nature and its function, for example, that which clings, that which likes, is different from that which does not like, see. That's why only citta and cetasikas can experience the object, the rupa, no matter it is hadaya rupa or whatever, it cannot experience the object at all. The eye itself, the eye base, cannot experience, it cannot see. That which sees is the citta, the chief of experiencing and the cetasikas experience the same object, but it cannot perform the function of citta.

That's why without understanding the truth of citta and cetasikas, they are together, unknown, it's not clear. But when it's citta-anupassana satipatthana it's not the awareness of any cetasika at all, just that which is now the chief of experiencing the object right now.

[Roti] But, for example visual object is vipaka, isn't it?

[A. Sujin] No, no, not at all, rupa cannot be vipaka because vipaka means the citta and cetasikas which are conditioned by kamma to arise and experience a certain object, pleasant or unpleasant, by [the] kamma which conditions the vipaka to be kusala vipaka, the result of kusala, or akusala vipaka. But the rupa does not experience any object at all.

[Roti] So, in the case of visual objects is the experience of the visual object that is vipaka, right?

[A. Sujin] The citta, the cakkhuvinññana.

[Roti] The citta that knows visual objects, that's what is vipaka, right?

[A. Sujin] We have to know that the citta which experiences the object before seeing cannot see, so it cannot be vipaka. That's why we learn how many vipaka cittas are there, and how many cetasikas which are vipaka, otherwise we mix them all. The citta which is kusala cannot be vipaka, the kusala cetasikas cannot be vipaka, only the vipaka citta and the vipaka cetasikas, conditioned by a kamma, experience the object, either pleasant of unpleasant, conditioned by [a] kamma, when it is kusala kamma, whenever there is a pleasant object, the kamma conditions the vipaka to experience that, as its result. So, can any rupa be vipaka?

[Roti] Only the rupas which are conditioned by kamma, am I right?

[A. Sujin] No, never. The rupa can never be vipaka at all, no matter what kind of rupa. The rupa cannot be vipaka, but it can be the result of kamma. Why can it not be vipaka? Because it cannot experience anything, it cannot feel, it cannot be sañña (memory), but it can be the result of a kamma. That's why when kamma produces its results, it produces citta and cetasikas, wich are vipaka and the rupa, which is kammaja rupa only. But even it is the result of kamma, it cannot experience, that's why it keeps on, never experiencing any object, that's why there's the word rupa, because it cannot experience any object. And that's why it cannot be vipaka, because it cannot experience the object.

[Roti] So, vipaka has to experience, right?

[A. Sujin] Vipaka is only citta and cetasikas, that's why there are four jātis of citta and cetasika: kusala and akusala which are the causes which condition the kusala vipaka and akusala vipaka, and kiriya citta. Four jātis, nothing to do with the rupa because the rupa cannot experience any object at all because its nature is that which arises and cannot experience anything.

[Roti] So, when we say results of kamma it doesn't have to mean vipaka, right?

[A. Sujin] There are two kinds of results of kamma: one is vipaka and the other is rupa. To understand better and better, clearer and clearer than when we use the word vipaka it has to be only citta and cetasikas because it can experience the object, to feel bad or something like that, see, as vipaka. But the rupa cannot experience anything, but it can be the result of kamma, but it cannot experience, so it cannot be vipaka. That's why there are four jātis of citta and cetasika: to be kusala, to be akusala, to be vipaka and to be kiriya. Kiriya experiences an object, but it is not kusala or akusala. That's why when we use any term we have to understand the meaning of it, precisely. It is result of kamma but it cannot experience because it is the rupa, that which cannot experience. So it cannot be vipaka, that which can be vipaka must be only citta and cetasikas, the result to experience such pleasant or unpleasant objects, but the rupa cannot experience anything, but it is the result of kamma, as someone can have the eye-base and someone cannot, why? [By] what conditions? There can be other conditions by way of the medical, but one condition is kamma condition: when it's time for the eye-base to arise it cannot arise because the kamma does not produce it, does not condition its arising: it cannot arise. That's why the are rupas which is conditioned by kamma, the rupa which is conditioned by utu, the rupa which is conditioned by ahara, and the rupa which is conditioned by citta. That which is conditioned by kamma cannot be conditioned by anything else at all, that which is conditioned by citta cannot be conditioned by anything else at all. Only one condition, samutthana, for one kind of rupa. That's why there's less and less attachment to the idea of self: because of understanding more what are there now.

[Roti] Right.

[A. Sujin] Is lobha vipaka?

[Roti] No, lobha is condition, it's kamma.

[A. Sujin] Can lobha be vipaka?

[Roti] Yes, I think it can also be vipaka.

[A. Sujin] Never, that's why we learn to understand, to classify cetasikas and cittas by way of whether it is kusala, and kusala cannot be vipaka. Whether is kusala or akusala, not vipaka, see. When it is kusala it cannot be vipaka, when it is akusala it cannot be vipaka because the akusala is jāti of that reality arising to be hetu (root, i.e. lobha) which is akusala, or whether it is a hetu but kusala. That's why kusala hetu can be vipaka, but akusala hetu cannot be vipaka. To learn more, a little by little, to understand the truth of: no one can do anything. That's why the kusala vipaka can arise with kusala cetasikas, but the akusala cetasikas cannot arise with the akusala vipaka, because its nature is akusala no matter when, but for the result, the kusala, wholesome kamma can condition the wholesome, kusala [vipaka] with wholesome cetasikas, otherwise there would be no difference between kusala vipaka and akusala vipaka.

Can sound be vipaka?

[Roti] No, it cannot be vipaka, because sound is rupa.

[A. Sujin] Right.

[Roti] The experiencing of sound is vipaka.

[A. Sujin] Right, but can kusala citta experience sound?

[Roti] No Ajahn, it cannot.

[A. Sujin] Why not?

[Roti] Yes, one moment later, right?

[A. Sujin] Yes, but can it experience sound, the kusala citta?

[Roti] I'm not sure... probably, if it's a a pleasant object it can, I'm not sure.

[A. Sujin] That's why we have to learn just one reality at a time, to have more precise understanding of the truth of it, for example, can kusala citta experience sound?

[Roti] I think that the citta that experiences sound cannot be kusala or akusala, I'm not sure.

[A. Sujin] That's why in a process there are many different cittas, one citta is hearing consciousness, why do we call it or use the term hearing consciousness? Because it is that which experiences sound clearly because it performs the function of hearing, while the other citta arising in the process, the same process, but it is not the hearing, but it experiences the same object that hearing hears.

[Roti] That's right, yes, it's not the hearing itself, but it's still experiencing the the same object, right? Like the photocopy of that object, right?

[A. Sujin] That's why we have to talk about one citta and one doorway at a time, how many cittas in that doorway, the sense doorway? And how many cittas when it's through mind-door, experiencing an object. That's why they are different, even the mind-door process and the sense-door process. So, the akusala citta which experiences the sound through the ear-door and the citta which experiences sound through the mind-door, aren't they different?

The akusala citta which experiences sound through the sense-door, the ear-door, and the citta which is akusala, the same kind, experiencing the sound through mind-door, is there any difference? Otherwise the ear-door and the mind-door would not be different, aren't they're different? Experiencing the objects through the sense-door and [through] the mind-door. If they were not different, no need to say different words.

[Roti] They are different.

[A. Sujin] Because one is exactly the object which hasn't fallen away yet, even that is different, experiencing the object through a sense-door and experiencing the object, the same objects, through the mind-door, see. Who'd know if the Buddha didn't teach about this?

[Jonothan] So in the terms you were just discussing, one is the rupa itself and the other is the photocopy of the rupa which has just fallen away, that's the akusala citta arising in the mind-door process.

[Roti] All right, but when we're talking about the sense-door process there's only one one citta which experiences sound, isn't it? The moment of hearing that's what I mean.

[Jonothan] There's only one citta that hears the sound, but the other citta in the sense-door also experience the sound, but they don't hear it.

[A. Sujin] That's why there are different functions of each citta, the citta which performs the function of seeing and that which performs the function of receiving after seeing.

[Roti] Yes, but I just wonder how can you experience the hearing object without hearing it.

[A. Sujin] No, the hearing consciousness is the only one citta which performs the function of hearing, so that function is different from sampaticchana , the next one which follows it, the sampaticchana does not hear, it cannot perform the function of hearing, its function is to receive the object, experiencing the same object. That's why it needs vitakka cetasika arising with it, that's why for the 10 citta, the seeing, hearing and so on, do not have vitakka at all, no need because it's conditioned by kamma. It has to arise because the kamma conditions it to arise, by then exactly, but after it has fallen away sampaticchana experiences the same object but it does not see. But how can it experience the same object? Because of vitakka cetsasika being there, arising with sampaticchana, so it's able to share the same object with the hearing, even it does not hear. And this is the way dhamma is, nobody can change it. That's why there isn't only the seeing consciousness through that sense-door process, but there must be other cittas too, performing their functions, differently, even if it shares the same object, or experience the same object, but clear as hearing itself? Or as that which receives it and experiences it because of vitakka touches on it.

Second part: Different conditions of kamma and different vipaka

  • Audio of the entire discussion:

Video image: Detail of pillar, Sanchi