When it's there only pañña can understand it

-



[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 cetasika) and so on of the eightfold path, so, is it right or wrong, to focus? Is there any will or cetana to focus, at that very moment? So, what is that which is the will to do? It's not right understanding. So, the Pali term we are used to is cetana and cetana is not one [factor] of the eightfold path at all. So, if we don't talk about it there cannot be understanding whether it's right or wrong path at the very moment. Only right understanding can understand that is right or wrong. So at moment of focussing with will or intention is that right or wrong? To be truthful to what is there as it is, right or wrong?

[Tuyet] If we think that there's me to focus so it is wrong.

[A. Sujin] Usually even at moment of seeing, who knows that it's "I" who sees, already. So, at that very moment, when there is intention or will to do, is that the path leading to understanding the truth as no one and no self, by conditions? If there is no truthfulness of what is there it cannot be the right understanding at all, no start, no beginning of right understanding because it cannot understand that very moment, whether it's right or wrong, so it has to be so truthful to the truth, sacca parami. So, is cetana the path, one [factor] of the the eightfold path?

[Tuyet] You have said that is not.

[A. Sujin] But your own understanding, considering, not just believing. At moment of trying to do something, to focus, motivated by who, what? I, "I focus" is there. So the truth is that intention cannot be one [factor] of the eightfold path at all. That's why sacca parami is a very important parami from the beginning to the end, to be truthful to the truth, to support.

Has anyone come across the word sīlabbata parāmāsa? What is done which is not the path, it's wrong: sīlabbata parāmāsa. If you just remember the meaning of sīlabbata parāmāsa, but not understanding when it's there, how can pañña, right understanding, develop to know what is what? That's why all dhammas are so very subtle, it needs more wise considering to understand the difference of each one and to know exactly what is what, otherwise one might be taken for I, the other might not be taken because just thinking about the word "it's not me", but when it's there it's me, focussing.

So, sacca parami is not just the word, it's the moment when it's so truthful to the truth of that very reality. There cannot be focussing without cetana, right? And when it's right understanding, cetana arises with right understanding, it doesn't focus because... what about the function of right understanding and awareness? Even cetana is there, arising, but it has to arise with right understanding of that very object too. And the nature of right understanding that it's not wrong: it understands what is there as it is. So only pañña can understand what is the wrong path, sīlabbata parāmāsa and what is the right path. The wrong path is the wanting to experience, to understand, but no understanding of the truth of what is there.

But pañña has different characteristic, different function: it lets go wrong understanding because it understands what's right and what's wrong. So, if there's no right understanding wrong understanding is there, leading to wrong practice and wrong way, to try, to do, to get, but not understanding in order to let go of ignorance and attachment. So listen carefully to what the Buddha taught about everything. Why do we say a lot again and again about seeing? Because seeing can be known just right now, even one has the right understanding that it's not self, it's a reality which experiences only that which can impinge on the eye-base, but it's not there yet.

That's why listen again and again and again, this is the development of understanding, to pay attention, yoniso manasikara, to the meaning, to the truth, and other realities, wholesome realities: viriya and khanti and so on, so that one day, unexpectedly, who knows when time will come to realize the truth or to begin to understand the difference between intellectual understanding and direct understanding with awareness, no doubt about the characteristic of awareness as no self and everything as no one, not in anyone's control.

So we learn about the truth of what is there as seeing and hearing, even it doesn't appear as no one yet, but that's the way right understanding develops: gradually, secretly, unknowingly. But without thinking, hearing again and again, no thinking about it at all. That's why even now seeing does not appear as it is, hearing now does not appear as it is, but more understanding, more development of the understanding of no self can condition moments of satipatthana at different levels, by conditions: from the very beginning to more and more and more. And this moment is a condition, the path leading to right understanding, when that arises by conditions, no one there. More confidence and more and more confidence when reality begins to appear as it is, little by little.

So, at moment of understanding what the right path is, it is yoniso manasikara and when it goes wrong, it does not understand the right path, it is ayoniso manasikara. It's there already: we have heard, we have learned, but when it's there only pañña can understand it. So, Buddha means right understanding, so the Teachings of the Buddha condition right understanding of that which is not understood yet. So, how subtle it is, if one takes it so easily, like "I am aware", "I know that it's not permanent" and on and on and on, that it's only hearing, but the idea of self is there at any moment of whatever is there: nama or rupa, feeling, vedana, sañña, sankhara, everything.