Ekaggata, one-pointing to the object which citta is now experiencing

-

Ekaggata, one-pointing to the object which citta is now experiencing

[Vincent] Ajahn, a dhamma friend was asking how come we don't discuss concentration, samadhi?

[A. Sujin] Before hearing the words of the Buddha was there anyone interested in samadhi?
We can think that we have samadhi, that one's doing something with samadhi and samadhi is just concentrating or focusing on what is there appearing, but in truth the Buddha enlightened the nature of samadhi, not as everyone used to think about it, as concentration: the Buddha enlightened all realities as they are. So, what did He say about samadhi?
To help the others to understand what He meant by samadhi, or what is samadhi in truth.
People talk a lot about samadhi, but what is samadhi? Do they or anyone know? What is samadhi, is it real?
So we can talk about everything without understanding the nature of each one, each reality, for example samadhi.
There can be questions about any reality, to consider it, realize the truth of it, to know it as it is. Did the Buddha enlightened the nature of samadhi or not at all? So, what did he say about samadhi? Can anyone know it, understand it when it's there, without the Teachings of the Enlightened One?
So we begin to understand the subtlety, the very profound Teachings of the Buddha about the truth of whatever is there now. So, shall we begin with what is samadhi? Is it real, is it a reality? otherwise we just talk about the word, not the truth of what is there as samadhi itself. So anyone who says samadhi, is there any understanding of what is samadhi? Does anyone know what samadhi is now?

[Vincent] Dazhuang said this term it's just a concept to him.

[A. Sujin] That's right, so even the term samatha (calmness), what is it? Otherwise we just talk about everything without understanding the truth of it. Did He say that samatha is samadhi? Even there is the reality which the Buddha has told the truth about from the very beginning to the end as no one at all, it has to be carefully considered, the truth of it. So, why do we talk about samadhi? Because we think that it's known already, but in truth it is just the word about it, not understanding the truth of it yet.
But it has to begin, beginning to talk about the truth of it because it's so real, it's a reality, it's there even right now, unknown, each moment just arises and falls away instantly, even it's just that which we take for samadhi. So, what is there now, is it samadhi or not yet? Depending on the understanding of the nature of what we take for samadhi.
That's why we begin to talk about the chief of experiencing (citta, consciuosness), it seems like there's no doubt about it. But without understanding what is there now: it's the chief of experiencing, otherwise there cannot be the understanding of other realities at all, even the truth of what is there at this moment is not known.
That's why listening very carefully to the Teachings of the Buddha, about just one reality at a time, can condition the understanding of the truth, and that's the way to let go of ignorance and attachment, taking it for someone and something.
Is that the point of listening? To be truthful to the truth of this very moment, that the understanding of this moment is not enough at all, as long as we just take very simply as "seeing".
So, consider now what is now seeing, to understand seeing a little more, even seeing is arising unexpectedly and then it falls away unknowingly, in order to begin to understand the truth, letting go of the wrong understanding. It has to begin with: at moment of seeing right now, what is the nature of that which sees?

No one can understand the truth of seeing right then or now, at moment of hearing about it. It takes quite a long, long time to understand seeing right now as: it's not that which is seen. Is that the point of hearing again and again about seeing? To understand it a little bit better, very gradually, to begin to attend to the characteristic which is there as not-that-which-is-seen.
That's why we talk about what is there again and again and again: to understand the truth of that which is there, not only seeing. So now we're beginning to talk about that which is a reality arising with seeing, but it's not seeing.
Beginning to understand how subtle it is: even it's there right now it's not known at all without a little more understanding of what is there together with seeing. because seeing has to be conditioned to arise. Is there enough understanding of seeing, so that we don't have to talk about it again and again? Not at all! Because even it is is there now, it is not known as it is yet, until there's more understanding about what is there.
We talk about concentration or samadhi or samatha, but what is just that samatha or samadhi? If the Buddha hadn't taught us the truth of it, who'd know that there is what is called samadhi but it's not samatha? At moment of seeing there are other realities arising together, experiencing the same object, but they perform their own function, they cannot perform the function of seeing at all. So, there is not just only seeing, there are other realities as conditions for its arising, but they do not appear to be known, yet.

We talk about samadhi while there is seeing right now. Is there samadhi too at moment of seeing? If the Buddha hadn't taught about the truth, who could understand what is that which is there? Not just seeing! We don't have any doubt about that which is there, arising together with that which is the experiencing at that very moment... because there is citta, the chief in experiencing the object. And the reality which arises with it is different from it. And how many are there of those which experience the same object? So that they can experience the object, but not as the chief, so they're called cetasikas (mental factors).
So, who can know what arises with seeing because what are there do not appear, only seeing is there, it sees. So, beginning to consider what is that people call concentration or samadhi, is it there as well? No thoughts about the nature of what is taken for concentration, it's that which arises and is single-pointed to that which is there as its object.
All kinds of cetasika, the reality which experience the same object as citta, arise together. If the Buddha hadn't talked about it could anyone know what is there together with citta? We can understand concentration as moment of focusing on the object, but it's not that level of focusing strongly, to be known, but at that very moment of seeing, it's there. We can call it one-pointedness, only to that object, for seeing to experience it as the chief.

All dhammas are there in daily life, every moment, but just one of it, one reality appearing cannot be known as: it's just a reality which arises by conditions and falls away instantly.
At moment of reading attentively, what is there it's taken for - I am very interest in reading that part of the book, or the book, but what is there is real, the reality which focus in a moment on one object, or one-pointedness to that object, only one moment at a time, continueing on, so what appears is moment of having concentration.
So it's there each moment of citta experiencing an object. Even right now, when it's there so strong, there is the idea of - I'm concentrating on something, but in truth it has to arise with each moment of citta, to be one-pointedness to the object which is there, which citta experiences.
The core of the truth of everything is that each reality is anatta, it's there by conditions, arising and falling away instantly. So the characteristic of concentration can not appear in just one moment arising together with citta. So, no matter citta is interested in something or it appears as there's no interest at all, that reality is there each moment arising and it's single-pointed to the object which citta experiences. Beginning to understand conditions for citta to arise, can let go of the idea I-can-make-it, I-can-do-it, I-am-concentrating on something... citta arises to experience whatever is there now, see. So, the characteristic of that which is one-pointedness to the object which is changing all the time, so, it is that which we call lack of concentration, but actually there must be a reality which arises and performs its function, together with citta. And there are many degrees of one reality, citta arises with different cetasikas,it experiences different objects and and so on, with such and such citta. That's why there can be the understanding of the truth that: it's a reality arising with citta, each moment, depending on the level of the citta which experiences the object, to be such level of concentration.

Each word is just the a hint to condition more attention to the truth of each reality, to be known as: it cannot be taken for anything at all. The understanding that all dhammas are anatta develops gradually, each moment of understanding. At moment when concentration is there known: it's not I, the point is that it is just a reality, otherwise that is the wish or wanting to have it more and more, wanting to concentrate on something more, is at that the path leading to understand it truth? Because it's just concentration which develops from moment to moment of one object to be known, but no understanding of the truth. That's why concentration is not right understanding.
That's why there can be a little more understanding of what is there that we take for concentration, but it's just the reality which is one-pointedness to the object, only that and then it falls away. And when the object is there again and again, more and more, there can be the moment of being concentrated on that object, but in truth - it's there just for a moment, from moment to moment.
So, is there the reality of concentration or one-pointedness right now, at moment of seeing hearing smelling tasting touching, any moment of experiencing an object? Is there any doubt, about what we've heard, about ekaggata cetasika? Can ekaggata cetasika understand anything, right now, as it is? Can ekaggata be the chief in experienceng the object?
So, it's the moment of letting go of the idea of self - I see - I concentrate - I do. At moment of liking that object very much, is ekaggata there? How else could there be liking of the object, attachment to that object, at that very moment, at moment when it's there?

Attachment cannot arise alone and ekaggata cannot arise alone, cetana cannot arise alone, feeling cannot arise alone, they're all there, in a moment, depending on what appears to be known.
So now, in a day, with understanding of the truth of each one, there can be moment of beginning to know it, but not fully understanding the the truth of it. At moment of liking something, liking is not known as just a reality which is there, not-I. So, even one-pointedness, ekaggata cetasika is there together, but when it doesn't show up nobody knows that is there, the same as lobha.
Isn't this life? So life is just different realities, just arising and falling away by conditions, non-stop as long as there are conditions for whatever arises are there now! No one knows that it has arisen and fallen away, but it's there to be studied, to be known little by little, about each different reality.
At moment of thinking - I'm concentrating on that one object, is that the understanding of Dhamma? So, in order to begin to understand the truth, it has to be stage by stage. This stage of understanding the truth is only pariyatti, intellectual, and what knows that it's only intellectual understanding? No one, right understanding is right understanding of the truth.

[Vincent] Ajahn, he has the idea that concentration can condition the understanding to arise.

[A. Sujin] Yes, but how? It's only the reality which is there. We can use the word focusing or one-pointedness or concentrating on that object, but it cannot understand, it performs its function, for citta to experience the object as it is, the chief of experiencing, but there are other realities like, for example, manasikara, it performs its function, to attend to the word the meaning and the characteristic, but even that is not the understanding. So at moment of understanding there are many wholesome cetasikas performing their function, for right understanding to understand a little more a little more.
That's why it's the way to understand the truth of anattaness, otherwise it's not - all dhammas are anatta, but the truth is that nobody can change the truth of all dhammas: what is real has its own characteristic. It cannot be changed, it cannot perform the other reality's function at all because it just arises to perform that function and then is gone, it cannot be changed. Is there any other question?