The path is subtle because goes all the way with no attachment
Excerpt from the Dhamma discussion in English with Ajahn Sujin in Kaeng Krachan (TH) on 4th June 2013 am. Part 2.
The subtlety of the Four Noble Truths
[A. Sujin] Have you heard about the subtlety of the Four Noble Truths? All of them. All four. But they seem like they are very easy. Just wanting to have it, so one goes somewhere thinking that he or she will know. But when is it known? Only when time comes by conditions.
[Lan] Annie wanted to ask what do you mean "by conditions."
[A. Sujin] Yes. Can seeing arise without the eye-base, without the visible object? Like for the blind; it is conditioned, each moment. Hearing needs another condition—not the eye-base, but the ear-base, and not the visible object, but sound to impinge on the ear-base. And when time comes to experience the result of kamma—the cause which has been done, it conditions hearing, at its proper time. No one can change the time and the object for hearing to hear—by conditions.
And when one learns to understand anattaness, one knows that it's true. That's why all realities are anatta. Not a single one is atta.
Trying to have sati is not a condition for its arising
[It seems the same thing that experiences—touching, seeing or hearing consciousness.] There is touching many, many times a day. Is there any understanding of that which is touched and the touching? Or just learning to know that what is touched is soft or hard, hot or cold. Just learning, but not the direct moment in which it appears, to see that it is just that—nothing is there.
And also sound is not there; the eye is not there anymore. It is only a moment of experiencing through the body. That's all. And that is anatta. But touching right now without understanding—can be at any moment. So the difference between no-understanding and developed understanding—it's quite different. Little by little, stage by stage. [In the past when touching...]
Now, how can there be such understanding? [Once I've read about it...]
Just reading? Or understanding little by little? That is so true. Whenever there is touching, there must be that which is touched. Only that in that very moment, no other things at all. Learn to understand that even touching is not self, and the object which is touched is also not-self.
Learning at different times, when there are conditions to understand. But when there are no conditions to understand, it's like ordinary life before hearing anything about the truth, at moment of touching. [Touching experiences the hardness or softness, and then the idea of table or hand.]
So what is it? At the moment of touching, what is the object of touching? What does touching experiences? [The hardness.]
Okay. Do you think that it's hard, or do you think that it's a table or microphone? [The moment after that.]
It doesn't matter. But how can there be the understanding that there is no-self who touches? Only through hearing, not direct understanding yet, which is satipatthana. So don't mind at all about sati or satipatthana, just develop understanding, and then right understanding will understand whether it's direct understanding or it's only thinking over it. [Sometimes I think that this is softness or this is hardness because...]
The idea takes it for something like sati, but it's only the idea of sati, not the moment that realizes that sati is not-self. It's conditioned, no matter how much one tries to have it, and that is not the condition for sati to arise, and there is no right understanding that sati is anatta. But when there is more understanding of what is taught, then it can condition a moment of sati; and then pañña can see the difference between moment with sati and moment without sati.
Otherwise, there is no pañña, only the assumption that it's there when it's not. Much difference between touching without sati and touching with sati. When it's touching with sati, there must be the understanding that sati is not me.
It's conditioned. No selection of time or place and object at all. Like now: there's touching. Is there any understanding? Are there conditions to understand it as non-self, or not yet? Because there must be understanding of the anattaness of all realities before there can be a moment of understanding it as just a moment of experiencing, no-one there.
The path is subtle because it goes all the way with no attachment
Can anyone go to a meditation center to gain understanding without any intellectual understanding at all? [No.] Yet they go. They don't know what's what. They're taught that that's the way. But it's not, because it's not in the Teachings at all, to have such level of understanding without intellectual understanding.
What is seen now? There is seeing, so what is seen? [Annie: An object.]
What object? [Lots and lots of objects.]
Something? [Yeah, trees.]
Trees? Can trees be seen? [Yes. Or, well, is it hardness?]
Hardness cannot be seen. So, can there be sati without any understanding? To develop more understanding from hearing and considering. Even what is seen is not known as it is. Can there be thinking without seeing? [Yes.]
And can there be thinking after seeing? [Yes.]
What's the difference between the two? Because thinking is thinking and seeing is seeing. They arise and fall away very closely; it seems like together. But actually, a tree cannot be seen—only the visible object, the only reality that can be seen. We do not have to call it anything, but whenever there is seeing, it's there. That which can be seen, and after that, there is thinking.
And when there's more and more understanding, sati begins to arise—very weak, very little, to understand right now that what is seen is just that which can be seen, a reality. No one can condition its arising at all, and it arises and falls away.
Who knows? But it's true, so it can be proven through the Eightfold Path—one of the Four Noble Truths, which are very subtle. The path is subtle because it goes all the way with no attachment. But when there is attachment to gain or to get, it's not the path because there will be more and more attachment instead of less. And the Teachings of the Buddha are against attachment and ignorance.
Otherwise, nothing could eradicate ignorance and attachment at all. Without right understanding, little by little, from hearing and considering—not waiting, not doing, not wanting, not hoping, not doing anything to get direct understanding of any reality appearing now. Because it needs its own condition, which is a better and deeper understanding.
Like what is seen now. If there is no beginning of understanding—it's only there when there is seeing. But without seeing, that which is appearing could not appear, so it cannot be a tree. It cannot be anything at all. It's that which can be seen. And where is it? Where is visible object? [Sorry...]
Without hardness, softness, the four primary rupas, heat and cold, cohesion, can there be that which can be seen? Because actually, even there are four primary rupas: hardness and softness, heat and cold, motion and pressure, and cohesion; there are also other realities arising together. One is that which can be seen. When it has impinged on the eye-base and only when seeing arises, it's there. If I take this away, the mahabhuta rupas are taken away along with the visible object. So visible object is there with the mahabhuta rupas—here it is again.
And not just the visible object, also smell. Some might not be able to smell, but when it's keen, a reality can smell odour when it's strong enough to be smelled.
And taste is there too. Taste it. And then it's just a taste which can be object of the tasting consciousness, a moment of tasting. Otherwise, the taste, even it's here, cannot be tasted. Like the taste here and the taste there, everywhere. And another thing is nutrition. That's why we eat.
Let time come for it to appear, it will appear
Without hearing this, how can there be less attachment to what we take to be something permanent? Never appearing to arise and fall away—it seems static, always here, but actually only pañña, right understanding, developed from hearing and considering, knows that it's true and it can be proven; it can be understood directly. When right understanding develops; not just when "I want sati to arise," to be mindful of this and that, because that's not the path. That's not the way to experience the truth of reality.
Only pañña, right understanding, develops. So pañña is the opposite of attachment and ignorance. Can anyone have less attachment with ignorance? Impossible. Attachment arises with ignorance. So without right understanding, ignorance is there and ignorance cannot have less attachment because they are there together.
Have you had attachment from morning until now or only few moments? Very few moments or what? Can you say? After seeing, there is ignorance about seeing. After hearing, there is ignorance. Ignorance and attachment follow moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching unknowingly because it is not as strong as when one does good deeds, ill deeds or ill speech.
By then, one realizes that it's unwholesome, but unwholesomeness is there. At moment when whatever appears and that object hasn't fallen away yet, it can condition ignorance and attachment instantly by accumulation.
Let time come for it to appear, it will appear. Let time come for it to arise, it will arise. No one can stop. After seeing, there is ignorance. But when there is understanding, it begins to develop, and you don't have to call it sati or anything, but it's a different reality from ignorance.
Otherwise, the Buddha would have taught for 45 years without anyone knowing what He was teaching about. But He taught about everything. Not just long, long time ago, but even now—it's true. Like seeing is seeing. Tomorrow's seeing will be seeing, not hearing. Ignorance is there.
The Buddha could help others to have their own understanding
[Jonothan] And when you say that after seeing and hearing, there's ignorance of what is seen and heard...
[A. Sujin] It depends on whether it's ignorance, attachment or aversion. It can arise after seeing. Or it can be goodness, wholesomeness or right understanding, depending on accumulations. Like in the time of Buddha, for those who had accumulated a lot of right understanding, after seeing, there would be moments of wholesomeness or even kiriya citta for arahatta. [But for us, there's ignorance of that reality.]
That's why Buddha told us in detail about how one moment of seeing is followed by which type of citta, what function of citta is there. And there can be javana with kusala or akusala before the rupa or the object which is experienced has fallen away. But it's unknown because of ignorance.
So one can understand by oneself how much understanding one has. No need to ask anyone—who can know better than you? So what is the Teacher? Who is the Teacher? The person who helps you to understand or the one who tells you to do something without understanding? The Buddha didn't tell anyone to do but He taught so that others, the listeners, could understand, to have their own understanding, and not just follow someone. If someone is asked to go to a meditation center or retreat, shouldn't that person ask what for? To do or to understand? If it's not for understanding, it's useless to go.
[Sarah] Going to a retreat or going to the temple or spending more time with the monks, not necessarily for understanding, but just to have a break or some quiet time. So I think people have different purposes.
[A. Sujin] No need to have the Buddha's words as refuge because people, anyone, can tell you about "how to." Like when you are thirsty: "have this," but you will be thirsty again and again. Endlessly. So what's the use? No need for the Buddha then, when there is no understanding. This is the difference between the Sammāsambuddho and the others or the other teachers.
And who was the Great Teacher? The One who could help others to have their own understanding; rather than just being told—no understanding at all.
It's not the way you like it—you want something permanent
[Annie] But I suppose the retreat I went on gave me time to reflect on the cause of my problems and...
[A. Sujin] What is the cause of the problems? If you don't know the cause, how can you get rid of it? Without understanding, there must be problems. Because problems come from what? [The self.]
And ignorance. [I understand that in a way it's external silence and external calmness. It's not internal.]
No understanding, no matter external or internal. It is just the object of attachment because you like it that way. So there's ignorance and attachment all the time. [I went to this retreat. From that, I'm hoping that it will then help my relationship with others.]
More clinging. A better relationship is clinging, right? You just want a better self, right? [Yes.]
Still yours, me. [Yeah. Wanting something.]
No understanding that there is no you in reality, absolute reality. So what's better: to understand or just to have what you'd like to have without understanding? What about learning to understand that what appears now is conditioned or not knowing about it at all? And to cling more or have less clinging—what is better? And clinging itself will lead to... disappointment. Because it's not the way you like—you want something permanent, and being good, like a good self or myself.
But actually there isn't anything that can belong to anyone at all. Seeing arises, it falls away. It does not belong to anyone. Our whole life does not belong to anyone at all. It's conditioned to arise and fall away in succession so very rapidly. That's why it conditions ignorance and attachment all the time.
Does visible object now belong to you?
But when there's understanding, it begins to see: what's the use of just arising and falling away? Just experiencing something—without that which can experience there cannot be life because it seems like there are many things: visible object, sound and everything. But without that which experiences, there's nothing.
So it's not you who experiences. It's just a reality that is conditioned by the appropriate conditions only. [I still feel though that I have to look after myself in this life. I have to take responsibility for my actions, and I have to...]
You can do anything with right understanding too, not with ignorance as before. It doesn't mean that you would change from ignorance to doing nothing. But actually, each moment is conditioned. That's why the Buddha's followers were not just monks in the old days, also laypeople too.
Pañña does not belong to anyone. There must be conditions for its arising. It arises and falls away too. But it develops from moment to moment, and it doesn't hurt to understand correctly, rightly. Are you thinking? [Yes.]
Can you stop thinking? [No.]
There must be conditions for seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching; and thinking. No one can stop it, but it depends on—why these people think like this, and others think differently—by conditions, by accumulation; uncontrollable. [I suppose I'm looking for ways to learn to reduce my anxiety. Is this something that can help me?]
All for myself, when there is no-self. [Yes.]
It has to be like this as long as there is ignorance. But when there is pañña, life is easier than before because pañña never brings trouble. It understands how it happens. [Pañña means...]
Right understanding. The best reality in the world—or is it not? What is better than right understanding? What else would you like to have if you have everything? Nothing more, or what? [No, always wanting more.]
Enough? Or even if you have everything, it doesn't really belong to you. You think that you have it, in your thoughts, but actually does visible object now belong to you? Sound? The body?
We think that we see the world but it is only visible object along the idea
So is there anything else that is worth having, instead of having everything that one would like to have in life? This is the difference for those who have something to think about, what is life? Is it worthwhile just to be born, have everything, and then die. Not being this person anymore, even just for a split second, after the death consciousness arises and falls away. But there are conditions for that reality which can experience an object to arise again and again, right now!
Or who brought you to this world? How could you know that you would be here in this world? You call it "this world," but in reality, what is the world? No understanding at all, yet everyone has to die, either with ignorance or with understanding. And what is better? Ignorance or understanding?
So it's just the most precious moment—learning to understand. It doesn't mean that you lose everything in life, the self or everything, just by learning or thinking. It takes time to really understand each word as it is, like right understanding. It's not that just because someone says "right understanding," so it is right understanding. Not at all. Understanding what? If it's not this moment in which a reality appears, then there's no understanding. It has to be this moment.
That which appears should be understood as it is. Like seeing—what does it see? We think that we see the world, things and people on the screen, on television, or now, on the Zoom screen. But actually it's only visible object along the idea, with ignorance, taking it for something permanent.
And this should be developed more than having anything else in the world because it can be accumulated from today to other moments in life. While other things cannot follow you or belong to you at all, even the body, what you take for my body, my seeing, my hearing, my thinking. They are all different conditioned realities. Even thinking cannot be controlled by anyone. That's the meaning of anatta, non-self; Uncontrollable.
Is it worthwhile to talk about the truth? It doesn't mean that you can have an understanding of reality right now, so soon; it takes time to really understand what is seen in order to eliminate the idea of something in it, in the visible object. No one, like when you look in a mirror—someone seems to be there, but actually no one there.
The way to have less attachment, which will bring less disappointment
[Sarah] Could you say a little more about being courageous?
[A. Sujin] Yeah, because you see what you get from the retreat or meditation center? More attachment to the self. Who can get rid of the self? No one. Only right understanding, as it begins to develop. To see the truth of what appears now. Uncontrollable, it does not stay. The moment now is not the moment before or the next moment. And no one can imagine how short a moment is. But it's true, and we can learn to know about realities, absolute realities.
Do you have friends? Only when there is thinking. Do you have enemies? Only when there is thinking. Seeing does not have any enemies or friends at all. Seeing just sees. That's all.
It arises to see. The function that it performs is seeing. No one can change it because it is a reality conditioned by the eye-base, the visible object and other conditions to arise and see. No-one there.
This is way to have less attachment, which will bring less sorrow or disappointment. Whenever there is wishing or wanting, what follows? [Annie: More sorrow.]
But you know whatever comes must be by conditions. No understanding of whatever appears, so the self is there. Or you have less self.
Understanding the characteristic of not self before the conditions
[Lan] The idea of self also arises and passes away...
[A. Sujin] When? When does it arise? [Anytime.]
Now, is it arising? See, we just talk about it, but it can be object of understanding directly, and we call that sati—a reality which can be aware with right understanding. Without right understanding, no for awareness to arise at all. [Aren't there many conditions for sati to arise?]
Certainly. When we talk about satipatthana, right understanding of a reality right now, just one at a time. Not just talking about stories of many realities, but the direct understanding, direct awareness. How many vipassana-ñanas are there? [Is it 16?]
See, anyone can say it. What is the first one? [Nama-rupa-pariccheda.]
It's not paccaya-pariggaha-ñana, see? That's why there must be the understanding of the characteristic which is not self, that which experiences or that which cannot experience before there can be more understanding of paccaya or conditions, later.
There must be right understanding of the difference between each one, like this is moment of experiencing hardness, not moment of seeing, experiencing visible object. Before knowing or understanding intellectually what the conditions are for each one.
Why do we talk about conditions? To have the understanding of non-self, little by little. But when it's not direct understanding, the self is there. So intellectual understanding alone cannot eradicate the idea of self at all.
So the understanding of anattaness, not you who can have awareness, but understanding can see moment without awareness and moment with awareness when awareness arises by conditions, not "I'll try to have it." [Even having the idea or the intention that I'm trying, or I'm doing, I'm practicing; or "I'm learning," "I'm listening," it's also...]
Wrong view, yes. [...arising and passing away.]
But who knows the arising and falling away? Ignorance cannot. Only pañña, at the level of vipassana-ñana, not the first or the second either—stage by stage.
Mp3 audio file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oGMDnMqXQ8pfZQ6buwzuZ3lvfJRnBzcb
Dhammahome source audio: https://www.dhammahome.com/audio_en/download/a1f6b1cd/59/2