Anatta, no one can change it or do anything: it's already there

-



[Leena] We understand that it's the dhammas which are arising, it's all conditioned, that it's not in our hands and this is possibly because of our kamma that conditioning is so powerful and the conditions are arising causing certain things to be present, but when we say that dhammas are non-self, they are not because of... this is not under our control, isn't it just at intellectual level? So, suppose one really wants to penetrate kamma and one is not conditioned to understand it, the conditions are not right, he cannot actually penetrate the dhamma, he cannot actually understand dhamma, then he cannot actually progress further and that possibly depends on his kamma, so, where does the viriya fit into it?

[A. Sujin] It seems like there is some understanding while we say about anything, like dhamma and viriya and so on, but what did the Buddha say about that? Can we understand the meaning of the words we say? Or, we can think [it] up in our own way, or listen to the wise words, the Enlightened One. What did he say about things, about everything, about every word? For example, kamma or viriya and so on, did Buddha say anything about it? Or we can think about it by ourselves, from just hearing only some words from him, but the meaning of it, the truth of it, is so far, very deep, very subtle. That's why it cannot be directly understood, what he said, instantly, but it takes time to consider each word because each word from the One who was Enlightened cannot be changed at all.

That's why what are we talking about now? [About] what the Buddha said: all dhammas... what is meant by dhamma? All dhammas are anatta. What's the meaning of anatta? We can think that: oh, everything is uncontrollable and so on, and that is anatta, but he taught more than that, just to develop the understanding of that which is now so very deep and so very subtle. And when we talk about viriya, it seems like it's not subtle at all, but actually, all dhammas are anatta, what does it mean? Is viriya I or someone or something? Or is it a reality? We can know when it's there, patience, viriya, but not understanding the absolute truth that the Buddha has enlightened: no one there at all, but there are conditions to condition any reality which is appearing now, no one can do that.

So, can anyone have right understanding, to realize the truth at will? Or trying the other way, of [making] effort the whole night? Trying to understand it or to directly experience it without any understanding of the truth stage by stage at all. For example, there is seeing right now, everyone knows, you can ask a child or anyone what seeing is, it sees now, but what about the understanding of the others from the Buddha, the Enlightened One? So, he said all dhammas are anatta. That's why even seeing right now, which sees, it's not-me, the meaning of a(n)-atta not anyone, it does not belong to anyone, no one can change it, no one can do anything because it's already there, by conditions. Can anyone make seeing arise? So, can anyone make viriya arise? But when there is "I'm having virya", [the] "I" is there, instead of understanding what is meant by dhamma and anatta.

So, it depends on how much confidence of the truth, to understand what we think that we understand enough, or no understanding without the Teachings of the truth, the absolute truth. Even viriya, why some have viriya and some do not have viriya at all? By conditions, even for oneself or yourself or myself cannot condition viriya to arise when there's not viriya. Just being lazy and so on, by conditions, would [you] like to have less lazyness? All depends on conditions, even right now, who can do, to see? It's there and gone instantly and that's the meaning of no thing and no one because it appears so very shortly, who knows? Until the Buddha taught about the processes of experiencing an object, to be object of considering about the truth of it, or about the truth of what is there now.

Is there viriya now? Listening to the words of the Teachings, is there viriya now? To consider carefully the truth of it, whether it's true or not. Because anyone can talk about viriya and everyone knows that sometimes there is viriya, but it's me. But what did the Buddha say? No one there at all. And how to understand clearly, to directly experience the arising and the falling away of viriya? Because, in life, everyone can understand that it changes, every moment, never arise again, yesterday cannot be today, what was there yesterday, completely gone never to arise at all in samsara, is that not true? So, is there understanding enough of viriya? As Buddha said, anatta, no one there, all depends on conditions, otherwise whatever is appearing now could not be there at all.

So, just have confidence of the truth of whatever is there, it's just one's own thinking about viriya and kamma and so on, but the Buddha taught about each one, in details: the characteristic, the function, the condition for whatever is arising, to consider whether is there anyone or all are dhammas and all are anatta because seeing's gone. At moment when it's there and there's no understanding of seeing, there is the idea for sure: I see. Because no one there at all and there is the idea of seeing only when it arises and experiences.

So, the reality which just arises and experience is taken for "I", when there is no one around and when there's no understanding of the characteristic which [is] not I, but it sees and "it" is it, seeing cannot be hearing, cannot be thinking, cannot be like or dislike, cannot be wrong understanding or right understanding. That's why the more understanding of the truth that the Buddha had enlightened, the more respect to the truth: no one can change it at all. And that is viriya which is parami, to develop the understanding to eradicate, to let go the idea of self, until there is no condition for it to arise at all: the enlightenment of the truth eradicates all wrong understanding about whatever is there as "I" or "mine". Because the truth is that even just a moment ago: completely gone. And who knows what will be the next one? Unexpectedly. So, when we use this term we don't know what will happen, it includes [the] next moment too, who knows? and is there "I" who can control, who can have viriya, to have it arise or to be such-and-such. All these words are the words of truth, to understand whether it's true or not and this is the only way, not trying to experience it, but: it's there now, why not understanding it?

As one tries to let go the idea of self, so what's the point of doing something? To get what? What for? Doing what, and who's doing and what's the result of doing? Consider it, be truthful to the truth. What's the word of truth and what are my words? "I'll try, otherwise I cannot be successful". But what? Without understanding can there be the enlightening of the truth of anything, at any time, even right now? So, just consider what is true and what is not true and who's the Buddha and who am I. Did he say anything, [to] force anyone to just do, without understanding? Otherwise he wouldn't have taught for 45 years, in details, so many that there could be the understanding from hearing, considering on and on and on, to let go wrong understanding.

For example, what is viriya? How come? Can anyone make it arise? Or there are conditions to have viriya, some times that can be known, but actually the Buddha taught in details what type or what kind of citta do not arise with viriya, or viriya does not arise with such and such citta, who knows? But why do we understand the benefit, the value of knowing or understanding that? To let go the idea of "I will do" or "I can do"... ...anything. Because actually, if there's nothing arising at all, can there be anyone? But what's now arising? Who knows the moment when it arises and the moment it falls away? But the Buddha enlightened the truth. So what did he say about it? Not by just thinking that "I will have viriya" and so on, but he said that what is there is conditioned, otherwise nothing would arise at all. And condition is not me and that which is conditioned to arise it's not me either because it's gone, instantly, unknowingly.

So, why do we go somewhere and do something, to understand what? Because understanding can understand the truth of what is there anytime, but not by oneself trying so hard, but by understanding each word, to let go the idea of self. For example, this moment, if there's no hearing, considering, beginning to understand the truth everyone must think "I'm seeing", for sure, from birth "I", all the time, not understanding the truth of what is there, we think that we understand, but what about the Buddha, his understanding? And one's understanding? And what did he say about dhammas? What is dhamma? Is dhamma "I" or what we take for "I" is that which sees and hears by conditions? liking this, liking pleasant or unpleasant, by conditions. But when there's no understanding, since it's there and it experiences, so there is ignorance at that very moment, not understanding the truth that it's just a reality conditioned to be such and then gone, no one at all. So how can there be "I can do" or "I'll try"? Because each reality is conditioned, no matter it's lazyness or viriya.

So, whatever in life is there, presenting [itself] all the time, but no understanding of the truth that no one's there to do, it to make it, to try to have it at all, it's there by conditions. That's why the Buddha taught about miccha-ditthi, wrong understanding, and samma-ditthi, right understanding. what is "I know"? because understanding understands wrongly or understanding understands rightly, by conditions. Think about [some]one who tries to understand the truth without any understanding of what is there now, so, what is the truth that one tries so hard to get? What is that? And what about this moment? If there's no understanding of seeing right now, can there be understanding of seeing without listening carefully and letting go the idea of self? In daily life, naturally. Because the idea of self is there, so very deep, very strong, accumulated. That's why it can condition moment of ignorance and attachment all day, and even one, oneself, tries so hard to let go or to understand, why not now? Because the future hasn't come yet and the past is gone. And what is there, no matter it arises and falls away, but there must be a reality, by conditions, no one can stop the conditions for seeing or thinking or liking or disliking at all, it's there from day to day, from moment to moment.

So, understand as the Buddha taught: dhamma is not-self, it's no-one. And what is dhamma? The reality which arises and experiences an object, what are there? Seeing, hearing, viriya and so on, all are dhammas, wholesome or unwholesome, by conditions, no one there at all. So right understanding understands what is there as it is, stage by stage. Without hearing and considering, can there be anything to be known as sitting? Trying so hard to know what? And not understanding what is there now. And who knows what will be next moment, or in the future, like tomorrow? All are unexpected. But the understanding of the unexpected reality it's not there, so the idea of "I'm trying so hard to do this and that", as "I understand" or "I think I understand".

But understanding can understand what is heard, and there must be sañña which remembers the meaning of that word, to condition moment of right understanding when there's wise considering of just any word of the Teachings, like dhamma. Dhamma is dhamma, did the Buddha say that dhamma is I? or he did say that all dhammas are anatta. What is true? And it covers everything because "all dhammas" means that there is no one at all. whatever is there must be a dhamma, a reality, different ones by conditions, that's all. and it has to arise, when the condition for its arising is ready, like this moment, any moment. No one there who can arrange, who can try or who can make anything arise. At moment of viriya, right understanding can understand viriya as no one and no self at all, but when there's no understanding it's "I'm trying to have more viriya", "otherwise I cannot... this and that". Is it right or is it wrong? If it's right, try now, have viriya now, why waiting? Is it enough? What can it understand? What is the point of trying to do, doing what? What for? For no understanding or for thinking of experiencing something different from this moment, no understanding of even this moment or any moment when there is [no] understanding right now.

That's why right understanding begins now, to understand what's meant by dhamma, is [it] a dhamma? Seeing, is it a dhamma? Is it a reality? Can seeing itself remember? Remembering it's not seeing. To understand more about the truth of whatever is there as it is not to be anyone or anything, they are different realities. And the two main differences are: one arises to experience, [and] one does not experience anything, it arises to be as it is, hardness, sweet[ness] or bitter[ness], beautiful sound or harsh sound and so on, by conditions, all by conditions. After hearing this there can be more reflections on what is there, by conditions, unexpectedly. Why some people think this way and the other think another way, what is right and what is wrong. Wise considering to know the meaning of the word no one. Seeing is seeing, arising and falling away, no one. Hearing is a reality, conditioned when there is the ear or the ear-sense or ear-base for hearing to arise when sound impinges on it, when it's time to experience such pleasant sound or such unpleasant sound, by conditions again.

The Buddha taught about everything and [about the] conditions for whatever is there arising and falling away, to understand the truth: it's not there anymore. Just thinking about it as it's [still] there but in truth it's not there at all every thing's gone, after it has arisen it falls way instantly, never to return: suññata, anatta, together. Understanding each word of the Buddha, stage by stage, little by little, and that is the development of understanding the truth, otherwise [how can it] arise to understand whatever is there as it is? Impossible. And understanding, no matter in the Buddha's time, those sāvakas, followers, who have developed pāramis enough, reading about those pāramis, not just no understanding at all, just hearing about this and trying to do that, it's impossible. Because otherwise, when there is understanding, there can be understanding of what is there now, no matter [it's] very little and on and on until it's strong enough to be firm enough to let go the idea of self. Otherwise, when there is ignorance there must be attachment because not understanding that it's not there anymore, at all.

So, thinking about pañña, right understanding, it's not "I" who have pañña, or the moment when someone tries to do something, without that reality, viriya, can there be that moment? But when it's there no understanding that it's not me or anyone, it's conditioned to be wrong viriya or right viriya, according to right understanding or wrong understanding, no one there at all. Try to find out what is there and read or study the Buddha's words to understand what he said about that. Did he say that viriya is yours, and you better try to have more viriya? Not at all. Otherwise what's the meaning of his words: all dhammas are anatta, can you change that? Can you say that it's not for everything? Impossible. So, it depends on wise considering of what is heard. For example, seeing right now: no one there, is that true or not? No one can make it arise, is it true or not? It's there and then it's gone, is it true or not? Because it's not the same seeing at all, what impinges on the eye-base conditions just the moment of seeing that only and that which is there arising and falling away too, everything which is conditioned to arise falls away because what conditioned its arising it's only conditioning the arising of that object and then when it has arisen falls away instantly, is that not true? Just consider the truth, what is true. Can anyone try? "I can do", "I can try", or "by conditions"? How great is the understanding of the Buddha? And what about one's own, what we take for understanding, but it's me! And what did the Buddha say? All dhammas are anatta.

That's why, study each word to understand the subtlelty, the profoundness of what is there: it arises and falls away, who knows? Ignorance cannot know because there is attachment to that as "I see", "I hear", "I think", "I'll try". Everything is taken for "I" while nobody is there and it's the moment of experiencing. The tree, the flowers, the bed cannot experience anything at all, it doesn't know, but the reality which arises to experience, there are many different ones, by conditions. That's why citta is a reality and cetasikas, each different one, 52, are not citta at all, but they arise together, by conditions, sahajata paccaya and so on. That's why understand the truth: whatever arises depends on conditions. When there is no understanding of conditions, because of not understanding the conditions for whatever's arising there is the idea of what is there as "I". Is it right or wrong? And what did the Buddha say? Didn't he know everything? Even the reality right now, or right then, or anytime.

So, what did he say about this, about moment of "I['ll] try", what is that? Laziness or effort? Khanti and impatience, it's conditioned just to arise and falls away instantly, by way of processes that the Buddha enlightened and taught about the first moment of life, the second moment, the moment of seeing, the process of that which experiences, hearing and gone. It's like the stream of bhavanga and then there must be a moment of experiencing a reality and then the stream of bhavanga again. So, where's the "I"? When there's no understanding: "I sleep", "I wake up", "I'll have my food", "I like it", "I'll go somewhere", what is that? The Buddha taught that it's moment of sañña, marking and remembering whatever is there. That's why there can be paññatti (concept), it makes known because of its nimitta different ones, different colors, different shapes and forms and the idea of self is there, but actually, in truth, each reality is different.

So, is there "I" or someone or something? Or different realities? By conditions, arising and falling away so rapidly, unknown. And ignorance is there, conditioning attachment to that. Even some sound, so sudden, so very quick, disappearing, there is the idea of "what is that?", taking it for something because of not understanding that it's completely gone, never to arise again. And what is true, from the very beginning to the end? So, what's the point of going somewhere, trying to know what? Is it not the same as the reality which sees, which hears, which thinks? Different conditions, different moments, different ones. Is this true? Or not true, and what is not true? If viriya doesn't arise can there be the idea that "I can do" or "I'll try"? But when viriya is there, what else? When there is no understanding it's me, by the accumulation of ignorance and attachment. But right understanding is beginning to understand the truth of it from hearing, considering, until it's strong enough, it can be condition to directly understand what is there when what is there is there. Is it not true? And what is not true? But seeing being not self it's so true, it's gone and no one can make it arise.

Is there anything you would like to say, Khun Leena? About the truth, who thinks of "I", or who has the very strong clinging to the... thinking about "I"? [It] can be one's own question... to find the answer. What about the past ideas and what about after hearing the words of the Buddha, just one word to understand clearly, firmly that it's the Buddha's word. Or did he say something different from: all dhammas are anatta? If anyone says [that], the person who understands the truth knows that it's not right. Where's the "I" right now? If there's no seeing hearing smelling tasting, the reality which experiences an object arising by conditions, where is the "I"? And there is sound now, is it "I hear"? Or there must be a reality which arises and experiences sound, the reality which can experience an object, it's a reality. And the chief of experiencing, just experiences the object clearly, it's what we say or what the Buddha called citta, not cetasika. Even the experiencing is different as citta and many cetasikas condition many cittas to be different one from the other, seeing it's not hearing, it's not thinking.