Patigha, like being hit by something very unpleasant

-



[Vincent] Yaya was telling me last night, she said she appreciates the discussion here because she said she is less angry now, she has more moments of being calm...

[A. Sujin] If there is no understanding of dhamma, can there be the moment of being true to dhamma? Everyone knows anger as "I'm angry", but is anger a dhamma, a reality, conditioned? That's why when there is a little more understanding of dhammas there can be conditions for letting go of the clinging to dhammas, even to anger.

So at the moment of being angry what has to be there as condition for its arising? If there is no understanding of the conditions for anger to arise it's impossible to have less anger. We can notice that anger doesn't arise as usual as before or as often as before, and that moment is not true to anger because there's no understanding of anger.

That's why there can be a little more understanding of dhammas, even anger, as there can be the understanding of other dhammas. So how come the moment of getting angry, in a day, with different situations? And the condition for anger to arise is the attachment to sensuous objects through eyes ears nose tongue and body.

Because in a day the object appears through these five doorways, one by one. There can be anger at moment of seeing something one dislikes and hearing the sound or the word that one dislikes and the smell which is there when it is smelled and the taste when it's too hot or too spicy, but that one dislikes, all the stories about the five objects through the five sense doors. And there cannot be no clinging to these objects at all as long as there's no understanding and being true to each one. When one has more clinging to the five sensuous objects, it's impossible not to have anger, is this true? Less clinging to the five sense doors, less anger.

By understanding this there can be conditions for having less attachment to whatever is there, experienced through the five sense-doors. Otherwise one would like to try to have no anger, but as long as there is clinging to the sense-objects so much, it's impossible not to have conditions for anger to arise. In a day one can notice and one can learn to understand the moment of anger, how come its arising? If there is no attachment to that object when it is unpleasant, [wanting it] to be something different from... but ignorance is opposite of understanding, it tries so much in different ways to have pleasant objects and more pleasant all the time. It's to ... led by attachment clinging, all the way, and that's the way it is. That's why only right understanding of the truth of what is there can let go little by little of what is dangerous to be attached to so much. And it is impossible not having the attachment to the sense-objects because it has been accumulated so long, eons and eons.

That's why anger cannot be eradicated, attachment cannot be eradicated until there is the understanding of the truth of each one as it is, what is kusala and what is not kusala. Is attachment kusala? Even one says: it's akusala, but it has to be there by conditions because there is ignorance of the truth of it. Even one tries so hard to have less attachment, but it cannot be eradicated, it has to begin with the understanding of the truth that, even right now, there is nothing permanent at all. And no matter what is there, it's conditioned to arise just at that very short moment and then gone. How could it be something or I who likes this or that?

That's why all kinds of akusala cannot be eradicated without right understanding of its truth. So just begin now, understanding the truth of whatever is there now as: it cannot be taken for anything permanent as being or self or I at all. Without the Teachings of the Buddha about the conditions for whatever arises, it's impossible for anyone to let go of the of idea of self and things conditioned by ignorance. So be true to dhammas when there is the understanding of what dhammas are, one by one.

Take anger for example, it's there but it's I all the time, that is wrong, no understanding, not being true to anger as it is because of no understanding of it. And how can there be the moment of being true to anger? Without understanding it's impossible. It's so very simple to say that anger is not anyone, is not self, but how to know that it's not self and it's not anyone when there's no understanding that it is a reality which experiences the object and the truth of its characteristic was taught by the Buddha in many ways.

So I think that Khun Jonothan understanding of Pali could help us to understand the meaning of patigha, dosa or anger.

[Jonothan] Sorry Ajahn, but I'm afraid my Pali is not so good.

[A. Sujin] So, even we don't use any proper term to understand it, to translate it, but its nature can be gradually directly understood as: at the moment when it's like something's hitting, crashing [pati + gha (caus. of hanati)], it's different from the usual normal moment as seeing and hearing so on. When it's not dosa things go on as usual, normal, but when dosa is there it's different, it's like being hit by something very unpleasant. Is there dosa now? But when it's there it's like moment of being hit mentally, so at that very moment it dislikes that object at all. So it's just a moment different from normal life, when there's no dosa and there are many degrees of all kinds of dhammas, even [with] very slight unpleasant feeling, dosa is there, [like] being hit by the object.

So, from now on there can be some moments, by conditions, to understand that moment as: it's a reality which is not pleasant at all. Just to learn about what is there in life from moment to moment, different ones all the time. When there is the moment of "I am angry" it's not being true to anger because of no understanding, it's taken to be I, instantly. That's why the words "being true to dhamma" needs understanding, to be true to dhamma. No one can force it to arise at will or trying to have it, but is there already by conditions, to be known, when there is the understanding of its truth. That's why we are now learning to understand the truth of realities as they are, one by one.

So now there is the understanding that the condition for dosa to arise is the clinging to the sensuous object. So in the day there can be moments of understanding what conditions dosa right then. And, from moment of understanding right now, it can condition moments of: whenever dosa is there, there can be the understanding of the clinging to that object which is destroyed or lost and this conditions dosa.

Is there any question about dosa? Can a sotapanna get angry? They are [still] clinging to sensuous objects, not eradicated yet until becoming anagami, no attachment to sensuous object anymore. So it's useless to try not to have dosa because it's impossible, but beginning to develop the understanding and have firm confidence of the truth of no-self, little by little, can condition moments of understanding what is what, to be truthful to the truth of dhammas and to be true to dhamma at moment when it's there.

Even understanding intellectually can condition moment of having less dosa, not at will but by conditions, understanding the characteristic and the danger of it. But lobha is lurking somewhere around the corner all the time. That's why Yaya's having less dosa because she listened to the truth of dosa and begun to understand it, but not as it is, no one, yet, but it can be condition for having less dosa. If she hadn't listened and if she had no understanding of realities at all, could there be less akusala?

Not only dosa but also ignorance too, very very gradually but it's there enrooted little by little. It's so very very little because it's unknown even right now. Less ignorance about the truth about dosa and about realities, little by little but it's there, by its function. That's why without listening to the truth of each dhamma it's impossible to have conditions to understand what is there now as no thing and no one.

And so, what is true and what is not true? Be truthful to the truth. The development of sacca parami is moment of understanding what is true and what is not true. The gradual development of understanding is unknown, so very little at a time. Is that true?