Dhamma with Ajahn Sujin

[Roti] I have a question, does nimitta arise and fall? [A. Sujin] What is nimitta, again? Without the reality which is conditioned to arise, nobody can stop the arising of that particular one because it has arisen by conditions, but since there's no understanding of conditions and [of] the reality which is conditioned to arise and then falls away, without that could there be nimitta? And if there was no reality which can experience could there be nimitta? So nimitta is not real, but it's the shape and form of that which arises and falls away so very rapidly, so it appears as something, like now: seeing is there, appears as seeing, what is seen is there, appears as what is seen, but in truth the seeing which is seeing now it's not just only a single moment, one single moment is impossible. So it sees, no one knows the moments, the processes of seeing and [of] the mind door and the bhavangas in between, until it appears as: it sees something, not only that which i

Updated: 2021-12-26 [Sarah] Tadao was just bringing up the topic of nimitta, Ajahn... [A. Sujin] In order to understand what's meant by nimitta we have to talk about the truth of this very moment. If nothing arises at all, could there be any nimitta? In order to understand what is meant by nimitta, nimitta of what? Of that which is now appearing. Why is it nimitta? Because it does not appear as it is, because it arises and falls away in split second. How could that be now appearing as it is? So very rapidly, from one moment to another moment, different functions. And even right now, as much as we can understand, it's the nimitta of that which experiences an object. It's different from the nimitta of that which is there but cannot experience anything at all. Just learn to understand the difference between the two kinds of nimitta: the nimitta of that which experiences: seeing sees, many many moments arising and falling away, unknown, so it is the nimitta of seei

[A. Sujin] And I think that the best thing is to understand reality as not self because now it's appearing. For example, is there seeing right now? How many moments of seeing? Or it's only one single reality directly experienced? Impossible! According to the processes that the Buddha taught, after bhagavanga what is there? Not seeing yet, but there must be a citta before seeing, can that be known? Impossible? And can the citta after seeing be known? Impossible. That's why now: because seeing performs the function of seeing, so the characteristic of that which sees, which is the citta, the seeing consciousness, can be known because it's there, experiencing an object, from moment to moment, never lost at all, there must be citta arising and falling away, no matter whether one is fast asleep or one is seeing or hearing or whatever. It is that which experiences the object, unknowingly, only that which is taken, which appears, as something, and that is what we say n

[Ann] Ajahn, I have a question, last week we were talking about vipaka cittas which experience sense objects, and we were differentiating between vipaka cittas and kusala and akusala cittas because the kusala and akusala cittas do not see or hear, you said something: when it is kusala it cannot be vipaka when it is akusala it cannot be vipaka because the akusala is jati of the reality arising to be hetu and whether it is a hetu but kusala, then you said: that's why kusala hetu can be vipaka, but akusula hetu cannot be vipaka. Can you talk more about that please, that would be helpful, Ajahn. [A. Sujin] That's why we have to study just one citta at a time, for example moha[-mula citta]: how many cetasikas arising with it? And how many cetasikas arise with lobha[-mula citta]? And how many cetasikas arise with dosa[-mula citta]? Is it enough or strong enough to condition akusala vipaka with the akusala hetu? Impossible. Because akusala hetu cannot be vipaka, this is the