Dhamma with Ajahn Sujin

(Transcript by Alan, link to his video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK2uWCfzpQA ) [Nina] The Buddha spoke so much about the subtlety of the Teachings and Acharn always reminds us of this subtlety. So, I think it's good to hear more about the subtlety of feeling and all the other realities and the Teachings. [A. Sujin] As long as there is expectation it's not moment of understanding anything. But from hearing again and again and understanding the anattāness of everything and the point is that it has to be anattā, uncontrollable. When it's so firm we don't mind at all whether now it's time to understand seeing or hearing or remembering or whatever, no selection, to be the proof of the confidence of no-one and no-self. So at this moment there is feeling but it depends on conditions whether it can be object of awareness or understood or not. That's why as long as we think about one thing it hinders the anattāness of that which is now arising and falli

[Tadao] I have one more question, in what sense the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha are ratana, gems? [A. Sujin] What's the meaning of ratana or gem? The most precious thing among everything in the world, what is the most precious thing, reality? [Tadao] I'd like to say they are important things for life. [A. Sujin] Yes, but with what is the most important thing not to be blind or ignorant [of]? [Tadao] As a buddhist, the Buddha and Dhamma and Sangha are very important. [A. Sujin] But actually, what is the three or the triple gem? Without right understanding, can there be any of the three gems? So, just [for an] ordinary person to become Buddha, by what? Without any understanding? Or only the highest understanding, not to anyone, only one who had developed paramis enough, to have such understanding, so great. What he taught was just like some few leaves in his hand, while his understanding was like the leaves in the forest. So even just one word he said it's not v

[Tuyet] I don't often remember many things because when I hear I can only focus on sound and when I see I only focus on what is seen. [A. Sujin] Shall we talk a little about... when you say "I focus", what is that? So, at that very moment, when there's the idea and you say "I focus on the object", what you mean? First of all, is that the right or the wrong way to understand the truth as no one and no thing? Otherwise there cannot be understanding of anything, if we didn't talk about that very moment, to be known what are there. There must be realities for sure but not known, so it's "I focus", right? "I" is there, trying to understand, so it motivates the moment of focussing on an object, at will, and the will is "I", right? Cetana, the intention, at that moment cetana, the will to focus is there. So it's not the path because no understanding and it's not samma-sati or samma-sankappa (i.e. vitakka ceta

[A. Sujin] So there must be the understanding of the Buddha's words of truth, like what is there now. The other moment, the moment before this has gone and that which hadn't come yet is now present moment and gone, unknowingly, no understanding of the truth. It's so true that the moment of seeing is not the moment of hearing, not the moment of thinking. When they are not known there must be ignorance of that which experiences as I: I like, I dislike, but if liking does not arise how can there be "I like"? "I know", when there's no understanding at all, can there be "I know" or "I understand"? And if one follows a method, how can there be the understanding of what is there? Even at the meditation center there must be seeing hearing smelling tasting touching. But there are two different kinds of idea, of thinking: wrong understanding, right understanding. So, no matter where, when there is a reality there, it depends on ig

[A. Sujin] Can there be the explanation of what is that which is taken for self? Where is it, what is it? [Marc] It's a strong inclination from within, so there's a lot of protest against the letting go of the self. [A. Sujin] But from hearing again and again of the truth, what it is and understanding that which is taken for self as not self little by little, it will let go very gradually the idea of self which clings to whatever is there as I all the time no matter it is seeing hearing liking... whatever is there when it's not known it's I all the time. But to think over it, considering it: if seeing does not arise at all, can there be "I see"? So, who can make seeing to arise? But there must be conditions for its arising because since no one can make it arise and it cannot arise by itself, but there must be conditions, so it's arising. So, it arises and falls away because there's not seeing all the time, We take it, in a day, hearing smel