The object of satipatthana

-





[Tam T.] In the satipatthana, is the seeing part of the kaya [anupassana]?

[A. Sujin] While one is sitting and there is seeing, what can be the object of satipatthana? This is a question, please. While one is sitting, lying down or doing something, what can citta or what can sati be aware of, with understanding of that object? What can be the object?

[Tam T.] Like when you're sitting down the body is touching...

[A. Sujin] Yes, but can there be the other object instead of [the] body?

[Tam T.] I don't know the answer.

[A. Sujin] Because you think about the word about rupa about seeing and so on, but the truth is that the rupa cannot experience anything at all and at moment of seeing the reality which arises and sees has no rupa at all, it just arises to experience. So no matter while one is sitting, doing something, cooking and so on, can anything be object of awareness? When there is understanding. But when there's no understanding no condition to understand what is there, so sati cannot arise and be aware because of not understanding anything. But when we use the word satipatthana it has to be with understanding, without firm understanding, intellectual understanding about what is there as it is, it's impossible to say or to think that there is awareness or sammasati, direct awareness. It cannot be direct because no understanding of it, but when there is understanding enough even while one is sitting, walking, what can be the object of understanding or of sati? This is the way to understand what we are talking about, each word, the object of sati and sati itself, direct sati, sammasati or just sati which is not direct yet to the object which is there.

So it's not just remembering the word but the truth of what is there, whether understanding is there or just thinking about the word kaya anupassana satipatthana. Instead of thinking about the word what about the understanding and the sati which cannot arise without understanding because it has to be directly aware of a reality with understanding arising together, to study the true nature of that object in order to understand better and better, clearer and clearer that what is there is as it is.

So, it's the right considering about that very moment, what we have heard, kaya anupassana satipatthana, what it is about. It's not just understanding the word, but what is meant by satipatthana and we understand that there are nama and rupa, no one at all. If this is firmly understood, how can there be wrong understanding about the word. So at that moment of walking, sitting, what can be object of direct awareness, of satipatthana? Not the word but the understanding, otherwise it's not the understanding of reality or dhamma, it's just remembering the word, the way it is explained, or by different aspects. But what about the understanding of what is meant by sati and satipatthana and the object of satipatthana. Not just being able to name it whether it is kaya anupassana satipatthana or what, but the truth is that when there is the understanding of the reality as not self, can that be condition for sati to arise? Just hearing, [then] there is sati, nama, and rupa which cannot experience, and when we take that, from head to toe, as body, what is the truth of it? To learn about the truth of what is there, otherwise there cannot be direct understanding or clear understanding of what is there which has been heard before. About kaya anupassana satipatthana or sati or patthana. That's why just learn to understand the reality from the word that the Buddha taught, about what is there now as it is, until it can directly be aware of the truth, clearer and clearer and clearer. Until it is the moment of directly experiencing the nature of it, the nature of it, not just the word about it.

So the question is just to test how much understanding of the truth which was heard, about nama and rupa. So at moment while one is sitting, walking, standing, what can be object of sammasati or direct awareness? Do we have to look in the book? Or just the understanding is there, enough to understand.

So now, one is sitting, there is the body, the rupa, and the nama. So at moment of sitting right now, what can be object of direct understanding?

[Tam T.] Just hardness.

[A. Sujin] Really? And what else can be the object? Only hardness or what?

[Tam T.] And the experiencing

[A. Sujin] And what? Anything, not at will...

[Tam T.] Seeing, hearing....

[A. Sujin] Yes please, what were you going to say?

[Tam T.] So there's seeing and there is hearing as well, at the moment of sitting.

[A. Sujin] Can it be the object of satipatthana, the hearing and the seeing right now, while one is sitting? While one is sitting can the seeing be the object of satipatthana? Or hearing right now? No matter while one sits or stands or what, what can be object of satipatthana?

[Tam T.] So it can be anything.

[A. Sujin] Right, because they are anatta, even sati, no one can direct to choose it, have it to arise and being aware of such and such object at will at all, otherwise there could be the understanding of the truth of all dhammas are anatta. So at moment when sati arises, it's not under anyone's control, by conditions, it just arises, just like seeing right now. It arises, whatever appears has arisen by conditions. So the moment when sati is there it has arisen by conditions, not just trying to be aware of rupa and kaya and thinking that I'm having kaya anupassana satipatthana. It's not that, understanding sati as anatta, as any object, as any reality. All realities are dhamma, everything, even nibbana is true, is real, so it is a dhamma, different from the conditioned realities arising and falling away.

That's why we learn to understand the truth of what is there and if one just think about different words, sati and satipatthana, but no understanding of the difference between sati and satipatthana and thinking that one is now having kaya as the object, but is there sati? When there is no understanding or not enough understanding the difference between sati at this moment: hearing considering wisely to understand what is there as it is at moment when it's there and what about [what] one has heard before, to understand that which is now appearing, otherwise it's useless: why listening to the truth? Because it's there now, but not enough conditions to condition moment of understanding the truth of it. And without direct awareness it's impossible to understand the nature of that which is there now. That's why, how can it appear as it is? Without understanding it's impossible and what level of understanding? Intellectual understanding is not direct understanding of just one characteristic of a reality because when they are together they cannot appear well or clear at all. In order to understand clearly or clearer there must be moments of directly beginning to understand the truth of that which is the object, whether it is that which experiences or that which cannot experience, no words at all, it's not thinking, but it's the beginning, patipatti, studying, developing the understanding of the truth, until the nature of that one which is the object appears clearly as vipassana ñana. But before that there must be patipatti, satipatthana and before that there must be the understanding of reality as it is, stage by stage.

And when there is awareness of vedana or feeling right then, no matter one sits or stands, it doesn't matter and it's not the moment of experiencing hardness or softness which is taken for my body as before, but it's the moment of understanding seeing.

So what would you say, while one is sitting and and then there is awareness of seeing, and there is moment of studying directly that reality which experiences, which sees, what would you say, what kind of satipatthana?

  • Audio of the entire discussion:

Video image: Kakkata Jataka (#267), Bharhut