When it seems or it looks it means that there's no understanding of the truth

-



[Marc] My question would be, I think, if I find myself, my mind being agitated and at the same time I see the relation between the agitation and the unpleasant feeling I can see something's happening in the mind which looks like compassion and at that same time the agitation just dissolves and also the unpleasant feeling.

[A. Sujin] Realities are so very subtle and if we don't talk about each one carefully we might misunderstand its meaning. For example, the translation, about metta or the development of metta, I am not sure, I would like the one who understands Pali to translate it because to me I don't think that there can be any moment of metta towards oneself, what does it mean? The other person, I understand that, but to oneself I cannot understand that at all. How can there be metta to oneself?

[Marc] I think there can be some goodness towards oneself, when I see agitation and I see unpleasant feeling there can be sort of relaxation...

[A. Sujin] Agitation, is it kusala or akusala?

[Marc] Agitation is akusala.

[A. Sujin] So, can it be anyone or it's conditioned to be agitation? And it's gone, can it belong to anyone? Or it's just a reality because it's there. And the point is to understand agitation or relaxation or... what?

[Marc] Not a person, or anatta.

[A. Sujin] That's why whenever agitation is there it can be known, it's different from metta, so, it's a reality, nobody can change [it]. That's why we learn how many realities are there, and more then that, different degrees of each one, by different conditions, so they are different, from a moment to a[nother] moment, not the same one at all.

And then it's gone, to understand the truth that no matter what kind of reality is there, it can be known that it's true, it's a reality, it's conditioned to be only there for a while, that's all, it cannot last at all.

Otherwise attachment is there and it cannot let go, no matter its agitation or whatever kind of annoyance. [The] "I" is there when there's no understanding that it's only a moment, it's conditioned, who's that person or who's what is taken for "I", nothing because it's gone, as soon as it has arisen it's not there anymore.

To learn to understand who'll be [?] or help one to have less agitation because of understanding, but it's not the end, to have less, the end is to understand the truth, that no matter how great it is or how little it is whatever is there is conditioned to be only that and then gone. It saves time to just think about it because it's there to be known, you don't have to find out what is agitation, what condition its arising because it's there already, by conditions.

To understand [it], no matter it is kindness or agitation or relaxation... as realities, dhammas, this is the point of listening to Dhamma, to understand the truth of dhammas, but what is meant by dhamma? Whatever is real, is conditioned to be that only, in that very moment, no more, only that [moment] then's gone, everything, arising and falling away.

And this is the understanding of agitation as a dhamma because it's a dhamma, it's real, it doesn't belong to anyone but it's conditioned to arise. And by having such understanding it will let go more agitation, to have less agitation, depending on conditions too, what level of understanding.

If you have right understanding and are kind and have compassion for everyone, you don't mind at all what do the other think about you, whether they do not like you because you speak the truth about meditation center or whatever, it doesn't matter at all. No one can hurt you, only ignorance and clinging to "I", when there's no "I" and you have kindness and compassion, you cannot get angry with anyone at all you have more compassion because of their ignorance, not understanding what is right and what is wrong and what is dhamma, not self, which is very very difficult to realize the truth because it's not just the word, it's a reality, it's there just when it's there and then gone, never to return again.

So, it does matter because [it's] no more, to be the object of agitation. So, no matter which is relaxation or agitation: a reality, different reality, that's all. You cannot make it arise, but when there are conditions for whatever's arising, it has to arise and gone, no one at all. And what is more useful is to consider the truth, to understand reality as not self because the absolute truth is that they are only different conditioned realities, just to arise and then gone.

[Marc] In the relaxation there seems to be identification with the process and that looks like the characteristics of adosa, the letting go.

[A. Sujin] What do you mean by it looks or it seems?

[Marc] Well, that I'm not really sure, I would say that it is like that, but at the same time I think I might be mistaken.

[A. Sujin] You said it looks or it seems and what is the opposite of looking and seeming? As it is, not just as it seems or looks, right? Because all are dhammas, even the word looking or seeming, or as it is, not just looking or seeming.

So, the Dhamma is so very precise when there is the understanding, even the term "not-self" or "not-me" or "no-I", it's not just the word, but the truth is that it cannot be anyone, it cannot belong to anyone because it's conditioned to arise and then falls away instantly. That is the truth, that it is like that, but when it seems or it looks it means that there's no understanding of the truth.

For example, can you change that characteristic which has been experienced? (No) But you can use different words [for it], but the truth is the truth. (Yes) That's why we learn to understand Dhamma, the point of listening to the truth is to understand the truth of dhammas.

For example, being kind to oneself, is it possible? Because at that moment there is kindness and you take it for "me" and how it can be kind to others "I" when that [idea] "I have kindness" [is there]? That's why there can be many many ideas, but what is the truth? Not only the idea, but the truth is that it's not just an idea about it, but the truth of it can be known, can be understood, can be directly experienced, since it's so true. It's not just like looks or seems or not clear, like being kind to oneself, impossible. because at that moment kindness is there, as on takes it for "I'm kind", who else [to be kind] to?

That's why understanding reality is not easy at all, there has to be thinking over again and over again and over again until it's clear that there is no one and no thing at all, no matter it is agitation or relaxation or whatever. At that moment no words, the reality shows up as so very different, but no understanding of it, so [there is] thinking about: it seems or looks [like]..., but actually it's not there anymore to be known. That's why it can be directly known when it's there only because it's [...] there, it's your [...], but not to right understanding at level of letting go the idea of self, not yet. But nobody can change that characteristic at all, so agitation is a reality, relaxation is another reality, different ones, but they are dhammas, no one at all.

This is the point of listening, to let go of the idea of self because actually it doesn't seem, actually the truth is that it's gone, never to arise again, so how can it be someone or I?

[Marc] I understand the truth of what you're saying.

[A. Sujin] So we've learned about the absolute truth, the Teachings of the Enlightened One about all dhammas as anatta: agitation or relaxation are dhammas, no one at all.

Until it appears clearer and clearer, closer and closer, to just be aware of, see. It's so [much] clearer and clearer and clearer, even just the words to be aware of, in the beginning it's not as clear and it's not just of that very object. Until then, nothing more, only right understanding of the absolute truths of it.

Now we're talking about agitation and relaxation, but it's not there and when it arises again [it's] not that same one which has fallen away, but it's conditioned by the other different ones, no-one-no-thing permanent at all.

That's why it is not easy to understand even just the words "that which appears": no one there. Because hardness is hardness, can that be anything or anyone? It cannot be the eye, the arm or the nail or anything at all, just hardness, that is the absolute truth and it's gone, what is left is only the shape and from and the nimitta and the idea of something which is not there at all.

That's why the nature of that which is a dhamma, just arises and falls away, it's so very very deep and very very subtle, but even so, what is there, only that which is there, can be known as it is when pañña is strong enough, firm enough... Is it possible? Then it begins to understand the truth, little by little it can understand more and more, clearer and clearer.