Tokyo
May 25
1971 Dear Mr. G.,
In my previous letter I quoted the sutta on Mindfulness of Breathing
in the Kindred Sayings (V) and the word commentary of the Visuddhimagga
, I will now continue with this subject. In the "Discourse on
Mindfulness of Breathing" in the Middle Length Sayings (III, 118) we
read that mindfulness of breathing, when developed, brings to
fulfilment the four applications of mindfulness. The four applications
of mindfulness are mindfulness of the body, of feelings, of cittas and
of dhammas. We read:
`And how, monks, when mindfulness of in-breathing and out-breathing is
developed, how when it is made much of, does it bring the four
applications of mindfulness to fulfilment? At the time, monks, when a
monk breathing in¤breathing out a long breath¤a short breath
comprehends, "I am breathing in¤breathing out a long breath¤a short
breath"; when he trains himself, thinking, "I will breathe in¤breathe
out experiencing the whole body¤tranquillizing the activity of the
body," at that time, monks, the monk is faring along contemplating the
body in the body, ardent, clearly conscious (of it), mindful (of it)
so as to control the covetousness and dejection in the world¤the monk
trains himself, thinking, "I will breathe in experiencing rapture
(píti)¤I will breathe out experiencing rapture¤I will breathe
in¤breathe out experiencing joy (sukha)¤I will breathe in¤breathe out
experiencing the activity of thought¤I will breathe in¤breathe out
tranquillizing the activity of thought"; at that time, monks, the monk
is faring along contemplating the feelings in the feelings, ardent,
clearly conscious (of them), mindful (of them) so as to control the
covetousness and dejection in the world...'
We then read that the monk, when he is developing mindfulness of
breathing, contemplates citta in citta and dhamma in dhamma. Further
on we read that the four applications of mindfulness bring the seven
enlightenment factors to fulfilment. The seven enlightenment factors
bring to fulfilment freedom through knowledge.
From the quotations of the Visuddhimagga in my previous letter we have
seen that those who first develop samatha to the degree of jhåna and
then develop insight, still have to be aware, after they emerge from
jhåna, of the realities which appear. They should, for example,
realize the rapture and joy experienced in jhåna, as only nåmas which
are impermanent and not self. If one develops insight "based on
jhåna", one should have the "fivefold mastery" (Visuddhimagga IV,
131), one should be able to attain jhåna and emerge from it at any
time and in any place. Then the jhånacitta is for such a person a
reality which naturally appears in his daily life. Only thus can it be
object of mindfulness.
The Buddha encouraged people to be mindful while walking, eating,
talking, in short, while doing all the things they would normally do.
He did not say that samatha is a necessary requirement for the
development of vipassanå. To those who had accumulated great wisdom
and skill and who were inclined to the development of mindfulness of
breathing, he explained how the development of this subject could bear
great fruit, how it could bring the four applications of mindfulness
to fulfilment. In being aware of nåma and rúpa one will learn to see
the body in the body, feelings in the feelings, citta in citta and
dhamma in dhamma. One will realize nåma and rúpa as not self. Then the
four applications of mindfulness will be brought to fulfilment.
Samatha and vipassanå are two different ways of mental development,
bhåvanå. The aim of samatha is to eliminate attachment to sense
objects, and the aim of vipassanå is to eradicate ignorance of
realities. Some people want to apply themselves to samatha first,
because they think that in this way vipassanå can be developed more
quickly afterwards. They should realize, however, that both samatha
and vipassanå are ways of mental development. The Påli term bhåvanå
means: to make become, to produce, to increase. Developing first
samatha before vipassanå is certainly not a "short cut" to nibbåna as
some people believe. Those who want to develop samatha should do so
only if they really have accumulated skill for samatha. If one wants
to apply oneself to a meditation subject, one needs a great deal of
preparation, one has to lead a secluded life and many conditions have
to be fulfilled. Right understanding of the way to develop calm with
the meditation subject is essential. If one just sits without any
understanding, is that mental development? For the attainment of
"access-concentration" and jhåna one needs perseverance with the
development and one has to acquire great skill. Samatha, when it is
really developed, is a way of kusala which is of a high degree. Jhåna
purifies the mind, but the latent tendencies of defilements are not
eradicated. After the jhånacitta has fallen away defilements are bound
to arise again. As we have seen, those who have attained jhåna should
still develop all the stages of insight in order to become enlightened.
One may apply oneself to samatha, but if one does not have
accumulations for the attainment of jhåna, or even access
concentration, one should consider for oneself whether it is
beneficial or not to continue developing samatha. Even while one
applies oneself to a meditation subject akusala cittas still arise;
the hindrances are not suppressed until one has attained
access-concentration and jhåna.
Vipassanå is to be developed in our daily life. If it is not developed
in daily life we will not come to know our accumulated inclinations.
Also our defilements should be known as they are, as conditioned
nåmas, otherwise they cannot be eradicated. Vipassanå leads eventually
to the eradication of defilements. It leads to the "ariyan calm" which
is the highest degree of calm. We read in the "Discourse on the
Analysis of the Elements" (Middle Length Sayings III, number. 140):
"For this, monks, is the highest ariyan calm, that is to say the calm
with regard to attachment, hatred and ignorance..."
It is still felt by some that if they apply themselves to samatha,
even if they have not accumulated skill for jhåna, it would help them
with the development of vipassanå. If one wants to use samatha as a
way to attain enlightenment more quickly one should consider whether
this is motivated by lobha or not. We should also know that sati and
paññå in samatha are different from sati and paññå in vipassanå. In
samatha there should be mindfulness and right understanding of the
meditation subject and paññå should know when there is true calm,
freedom from akusala. In vipassanå there is mindfulness of the nåma or
rúpa which appears at the present moment through one of the six doors,
so that paññå can realize them as not self. If one confuses the
different ways of development of samatha and vipassanå, there will not
be right understanding of cause and effect. One may erroneously think
that the development of samatha is the way to obtain a great deal of
sati of the Eightfold Path.
It is understandable that those who are discouraged about their
akusala cittas and lack of mindfulness want to make special efforts to
cause mindfulness to arise more frequently. As you wrote in your
letter, you thought that concentration on breathing was for you the
right condition for mindfulness of the Eightfold Path. You found that
after this exercise the six doors were wide open; seeing and hearing
seemed so clear. You felt like a spider in a web, ready to catch.
If there is mindfulness right now of, for example, sound or hardness,
what is the condition for mindfulness? Is it necessary to concentrate
on breathing first, in order to become more relaxed? We should
remember the sutta in which are mentioned the four conditions,
necessary for the attainment of the first stage of enlightenment, the
stage of the sotåpanna (streamwinner). We read in the Kindred Sayings
(V, Mahå-vagga, Book XI, Kindred Sayings on Streamwinning, Chapter I,
§ 5) that the Buddha said to Såriputta:
` "A limb of stream-winning! A limb of stream-winning!" is the saying,
Såriputta. Tell me, Såriputta, of what sort is a limb of
stream-winning?
Lord, association with the upright is a limb of stream-winning.
Hearing the good Dhamma is a limb of stream-winning. Applying the mind
is a limb of stream-winning. Conforming to the Dhamma is a limb of
stream-winning
Well said, Såriputta! Well said, Såriputta! Indeed these are limbs of
stream-winning....'
If we had not met the right person and listened to the Dhamma, if
mindfulness of nåma and rúpa had not been explained to us, could there
be "applying the mind", which is "wise consideration", and "conforming
to the Dhamma", which is the practice of the Eightfold Path? Could
there be awareness of nåma and rúpa, right at this moment? Mindfulness
and understanding are still weak, but, when one has listened to the
Dhamma, there can be a beginning of the study of different realities
which appear.
You felt like a spider in a web, ready to catch. When there is a
thought of catching realities, there is a concept of self. Realities
appear and if there are conditions for mindfulness it arises. It may
arise or it may not, this does not depend on a self. Seeing and
hearing seemed so clear to you. When are these realities clear? Only
when paññå realizes the characteristics of seeing and hearing as not
self, not when we have a sensation that they are clear. Can we say
that anything is clear when we do not even know the difference between
seeing and visible object, hearing and sound?
You thought that after concentration on breathing, when you were
relaxed, awareness was frequent and acute. How much understanding is
there? Which realities are understood? If there is no right
understanding we may take for awareness what is not the right
awareness. The realities which appear through the six doors at this
moment have to be understood. They cannot be understood immediately,
but we can begin to study them with awareness. Is there not something
which appears through the eyes now? We do not have to think about it
or to define it in order to experience it. We can call it visible
object or colour, it does not matter how we name it; it is just that
which appears through the eyes. When we think that it is a particular
person or thing, we are thinking of concepts. A concept is not visible
object, it is formed up by our thinking. A concept is not a reality
and thus it is not the object of right understanding in the
development of vipassanå. Do we know the difference between concepts
and nåma and rúpa, the realities which can be directly experienced,
without there being the need to think about them? It is essential to
know the difference, otherwise we will continue confusing thinking and
awareness, and then vipassanå cannot be developed. When visible object
appears it is evident that there must also be a reality which
experiences it, otherwise it could not appear. Seeing which
experiences visible object is not self, it is only a type of nåma.
Seeing can be studied with mindfulness when there is seeing, and there
is seeing time and again. There is seeing now. We used to live in the
world of our thoughts, of concepts, but now we can begin to study
realities such as seeing, visible object, hearing or sound. We are not
used to doing this but when we see the value of knowing what is real,
not a concept or idea, there will be conditions to study realities. We
are ignorant about all the realities of our daily life. It seems to us
that there are seeing and thinking about what is seen at the same
time, but in reality they are different realities arising at different
moments. Do we realize this? It seems to us that there are hearing and
thinking of the meaning of what is heard at the same time but they are
different realities. When we do not clearly distinguish between
different realities, can we say that any reality is clearly
understood? If there is still doubt it is evident that paññå is weak.
It is beneficial to realize what one does not know yet.
Ignorance and doubt can only be very gradually eliminated through the
development of paññå which directly knows nåma and rúpa. We may not be
aware of one object at a time yet, there may be a notion of self who
is watching realities. When there is an idea of "watching" we are not
on the right path. Realities such as hardness or sound appear already,
because of their own conditions. They can be studied with mindfulness
which also arises because of its own conditions, namely, as we have
seen, listening to the Dhamma and considering it. When we remember
that the realities which appear one at a time have to be studied in
order to have more understanding of them, there will be less worry
about the frequency of sati. If one erroneously believes that nåma and
rúpa are known already there is no development of paññå. When there is
right mindfulness realities appear one at a time and there is no self
who is watching.
If there cannot be awareness of all kinds of nåma and rúpa which
appear in our daily life, no matter whether we are busy or agitated,
we will not really know ourselves. If we think that we have to be
relaxed first we limit the objects of awareness.
The development of paññå should be very natural. There should be no
excitement about awareness, no thoughts about its frequency or
acuteness. Is there still doubt about the reality which appears now?
If there is awareness doubt can gradually be eliminated. If one
believes that one has to calm down first before there can be awareness
there cannot be awareness of whatever reality naturally appears. If
the development of paññå is not natural one hinders its development.
If you are inclined to concentrate on breathing when you are agitated
or have aversion, it would be very helpful if you could be aware of
realities appearing at such moments. Are there not akusala cittas and
should these realities not be known? When you wish to become relaxed
through concentration on breathing is there no attachment? It is a
reality and it can be object of mindfulness. Are there not different
feelings: pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling and indifferent
feeling? These can be object of mindfulness. If there can be awareness
when you feel tense you can find out that there are nåmas and rúpas at
such moments. Insight can only be developed if there is mindfulness of
any reality which appears. If you believe that there cannot be
awareness of aversion this reality will not be known as only a nåma,
arising because of conditions. If there can be awareness in your daily
life you will start to know yourself. You will be able to find out
whether concentration on breathing is beneficial or not, whether it
helps you to develop right understanding or not.
When there are many akusala cittas we may be inclined to look for a
way to eliminate them quickly. Those who think that they want to apply
themselves to samatha in order to have less akusala cittas, should
find out whether they really have accumulations to develop samatha and
whether the circumstances of their lives are such that the conditions
which are necessary for its development can be fulfilled. It is
important to know which cause brings which effect in life. If samatha
is developed in the right way and jhåna can be attained, there will be
the temporary elimination of defilements. If jhånacitta can arise
shortly before dying there will be a happy rebirth in a higher plane
of existence. However, the development of jhåna, as we have seen, is
extremely difficult and very few people can do it. One may take for
jhåna what is merely an unusual experience, not jhåna. Even if one
develops samatha in the right way and one attains jhåna, one still has
to develop insight in order to become detached from the concept of
self and in order that all latent tendencies of defilements can be
eradicated. Jhåna can lead to a happy rebirth, but vipassanå can lead
to the end of birth, to the end of dukkha. The growth of insight
knowledge cannot be forced, it has to be developed stage by stage.
We read in the Kindred Sayings (IV, Saîåyatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings
on Sense, Second Fifty, Chapter III, § 74, Sick) that the Buddha
visited a sick monk, who said that he did not understand the meaning
of the purity of life in the Dhamma taught by the Buddha. When the
Buddha asked him in what sense he understood it, he answered:
"Passion and the destruction of passion, lord,-that is what I
understand to be the Dhamma taught by the Exalted One."
"Well said, monk! Well said! Well indeed do you understand the meaning
of the Dhamma taught by me. Indeed it means passion and the
destruction of passion.
Now what think you, monk? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"Is the ear¤nose¤tongue¤body¤is mind permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"And what is impermanent, is that happiness or dukkha (suffering)?"
"Dukkha, lord."
"And what is impermanent, dukkha, by nature changeable,-is it proper
to regard that as `This is mine. I am this. This is myself'?"
"No, indeed, lord."
"If he sees thus, the well-taught ariyan disciple is repelled by the
eye, the ear, the tongue¤so that he realizes `For life in these
conditions there is no hereafter.'"
`Thus spoke the Exalted One. And that monk was delighted and welcomed
the words of the Exalted One. Moreover, when this discourse was
uttered, in that monk arose the pure and flawless eye of the Dhamma,
(so that he saw) "Whatsoever is of a nature to arise, all that is of a
nature to cease."`
For the sick monk the four necessary conditions for enlightenment were
fulfilled: he had met the right person, he had listened to the Dhamma
which was explained to him, he had wisely considered it and he had
developed right understanding of realities. Should we be surprised
that the Buddha, in order to show the way to the destruction of
passion, first asked: "Is the eye permanent or impermanent?". And the
same for the other doorways? People who wish to get rid of passion
quickly may wonder whether they should suppress it, rather than
develop understanding of realities appearing through the six doors.
The development of under-standing seems to be a long way to get rid of
passion. However, the Buddha showed cause and effect. There cannot be
the destruction of passion without there being first the eradication
of the wrong view of self through awareness of all realities which
appear. When right understanding of nåma and rúpa has been developed
they can be realized as impermanent and not self. This is the only way
that leads to detachment from the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue,
the body, the mind, to detachment from all realities. Realities
appearing through the six doors are explained in the Tipiìaka time and
again, and whenever we read about this we can be reminded to be aware
right at that moment. Are there not phenomena appearing through the
six doors all the time? We should not be forgetful of them so that the
way leading to enlightenment can be realized.
With mettå,
Nina van Gorkom
Tokyo
June 15
1971 Dear Mr. G.,
You found it difficult to be aware while doing complicated things. I
will quote from your letter:
`When I do things which can be performed automatically, like shaving,
eating and walking, there can be awareness. But when I do complicated
things like remembering a combination of numbers in order to open a
safe, there cannot be awareness. I find that a special effort is
needed for awareness of nåma and rúpa. While I have to exert myself to
do complicated things I have no energy left for awareness. When I, for
example, study a foreign language and I make an effort to memorize the
words, I exclude all other things from my mind. At such moments I
could not be aware.'
Shaving, walking, eating, opening a safe, all these things we can do
because there are conditions to be able to do them. If you had not
been taught you would not know how to open a safe. Remembering
something is nåma, arising because of conditions. If we forget
something, that also depends on conditions. The more we understand
that realities are only nåma and rúpa, arising because of their own
conditions, the less will there be hindrances to awareness. Realities
such as visible object, hardness or feeling arise already because of
their own conditions and you can begin to consider their different
characteristics. You should not think of having to make an effort for
sati because then there is still a notion of self who is aware. Sati
can arise naturally in your daily life. When there is the study with
awareness of one reality at a time there is a beginning of
understanding. One should not try to hold on to realities in order to
study them, because they do not stay.
We believe that realities are the way we experience them, but in fact
we experience them in a distorted way. It seems to us that realities
such as hardness or visible object stay because their arising and
falling away has not been realized yet. Their impermanence cannot be
realized so long as paññå has not yet been developed to that stage. We
know in theory that there is no self, but we still cling to the idea
of self who is aware. We may take energy or effort for self. Effort or
energy (viriya) is a cetasika, a mental factor which arises with many
cittas, though not with each type. It arises with the citta and falls
away together with it. When it accompanies kusala citta it is kusala
and when it accompanies akusala citta it is akusala. There is no self
who can exert control over effort, who can cause it to be kusala. When
there is right awareness of a nåma or rúpa which appears through one
of the six doors, there is already right effort accompanying the
kusala citta. We do not have to try or to think of effort. When there
is still wrong view, we may think that we cannot be aware while doing
complicated things. We may think that at such moments awareness is
more difficult than when we are walking or doing things which do not
require much attention. In reality there is no difference. If one
believes that there is a difference, one does not know what right
awareness is. If there is less of a preconceived idea that in
particular situations awareness is impossible, there can be awareness
also while doing complicated things. We may be absorbed in what we are
doing, but that doesn't matter. Being absorbed is a reality, it can be
known as only a type of nåma. Realities appear already because of
their own conditions, and gradually we can learn to study their
characteristics.
Misunderstandings are bound to arise as to what awareness really is
and because of these misunderstandings people think that it is
impossible to be aware in daily life. Someone wrote, for instance,
that awareness is the same as keeping oneself under constant
observation. We should observe ourselves in action, he said, and this
can be done quite simply by asking oneself, "What am I doing?". He
thought that in this way we learn to be aware of what we are doing and
that this constitutes awareness.
The word awareness in conventional language has a meaning which is
different from awareness, sati, of the Eightfold Path. When we ask
ourselves, "What am I doing?", what is the reality at that moment?
There are many types of citta which think at such moments. If we do
not realize that it is nåma which thinks while we ask ourselves, "What
am I doing?", the wrong view of self will not be eradicated. There is
only thinking about the self who is performing different actions.
There is no sati of the Eightfold Path, there is no development of
understanding of the different characteristics of nåma and rúpa. When
we are reading and we answer the question, "What am I doing?", with,
"I am reading", without development of understanding, we live only in
the world of conventional truth. We will continue to be ignorant of
the absolute truth, the truth about nåma and rúpa. When we are
reading, is there not the nåma which experiences visible object, is
there not the rúpa which is visible object, is there not the nåma
which thinks about the meaning of what is read, and should these
realities not be known? It is the same when we are walking, talking or
eating, if we only know "I am walking, talking and eating", it is not
at all helpful for the development of paññå. There is still the wrong
view of self. While we are walking, talking and eating there are nåma
and rúpa appearing through the six doors, and right understanding can
be developed of them. Some people believe that they have to slow down
all their movements in order to be able to be aware. Is there desire
for awareness? If one is not aware naturally in one's daily life paññå
cannot develop. The "Satipaììhåna sutta" (Middle Length Sayings I, no.
10) reminds us to be aware in our daily life, no matter what we are
doing.
We read under the section of mindfulness of the body, regarding the
postures:
`And again, monks, a monk, when he is walking, comprehends, "I am
walking"; or when he is standing still, comprehends, "I am standing
still"; or when he is sitting down, comprehends, "I am sitting down";
or when he is lying down, comprehends, "I am lying down". So that
however his body is disposed he comprehends that it is like that. Thus
he fares along contemplating the body in the body internally, or he
fares along contemplating the body in the body externally, or he fares
along contemplating the body in the body internally and externally...'
The commentary to this sutta, the "Papañcasúdani"[6] explains the words,
"When he is going, a monk understands `I am going' " as follows:
`In this matter of going, readily do dogs, jackals and the like, know
when they move on that they are moving. But this instruction on the
modes of deportment was not given concerning similar awareness,
because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does not shed the
belief in a living being, does not knock out the perception of a soul
and neither becomes a subject of meditation nor the development of
satipaììhåna.'
The commentary explains that there is no living being. There is going
on account of the diffusion of the process of oscillation (motion)
born of mental activity. There are only nåma and rúpa which arise
because of conditions. When the monk is walking, standing, sitting or
lying down, he contemplates the body in the body, he does not take the
body for self. He is mindful of the realities which appear.
We read in the following section of the sutta, the section on clear
comprehension:
`And again, monks, a monk when he is setting out or returning is one
acting in a clearly conscious way; when he is looking in front or
looking around¤when he has bent in or stretched out (his arm)...when
he is carrying his outer cloak, bowl and robe¤when he is obeying the
calls of nature¤when he is walking, standing, sitting, asleep, awake,
talking, silent, he is one acting in a clearly conscious way.
Thus he fares along contemplating the body in the body
internally...externally¤internally and externally¤'
If one thinks of the body as a "whole" the arising and falling away of
rúpas cannot be realized and one will continue to cling to the idea of
"my body". During all one's activities there can be the development of
right understanding, so that wrong view can be eradicated.
Sati is not: observing oneself in action. Sati arises with each
"beautiful" (sobhana) citta and its function is being non-forgetful of
what is wholesome. Sati is different from the cetasika saññå,
remembrance or "perception", which arises with each citta. Saññå
recognizes or "marks" the object, so that it can be recognized later
on. Sati of the Eightfold Path is mindful of the reality which
presents itself at the present moment, and then right under-standing
of it can be developed. We do not have to think of sati, it arises
when there are conditions for it. When right understanding of a
reality which presents itself is being developed, there is also sati
which is mindful, non-forgetful, of that reality. For example, when
the characteristic of hardness appears and it is realized as a kind of
rúpa, it is evident that there is sati. When we think, "I am eating"
and we are not aware of different nåmas and rúpas which appear, there
is a concept of self who is eating. When right understanding is
developed the "self" is broken up into different nåma-elements and
rúpa-elements. In order that right under-standing can be developed
there should be mindfulness of a characteristic of nåma or rúpa, not
mindfulness without knowing anything.
If one thinks that sati means keeping oneself under constant
observation, one is bound to believe that it is impossible to be aware
while doing things which require special attention. One may be urged
to make special efforts in order to create conditions for a great deal
of sati. Any speculation about creating conditions for the arising of
sati distracts from the study of the reality appearing right at this
moment. It is thinking of the future instead of being aware of
aversion now, seeing now, thinking now. There is clinging to an idea
of self who can control awareness, and in that way there will not be
detachment from the concept of self.
If we understand more clearly that our life consists of nåma and rúpa
which arise because of conditions, we will be less absorbed in the
idea of self while we do complicated things. Also at such moments
there are only nåma and rúpa. We may believe that while we are talking
there cannot be awareness, since we have to think about what we are
saying. There is sound and can there not be awareness of it? It is
citta, not self, which thinks about what we are going to say and which
conditions sound. There can be awareness of realities in between
thinking. I noticed that while I am writing the Chinese script
(Kanji), it is possible to hear other people talking or to think of
other things. This shows that there are many different types of cittas
which succeed one another so rapidly that it seems that they occur all
at the same time. Since there can be hearing or thinking in between
the writing of Kanji, there can also be awareness in between.
You mentioned that you could not be aware while learning a foreign
language. Learning a foreign language can teach us about reality. When
we learn a foreign language such as Japanese we cannot in the
beginning translate quickly. Later on we acquire skill and it seems
that we do it automatically. When we hear a Japanese word we
immediately know the meaning, it seems that hearing and knowing the
meaning occur at the same time. However, we know that they are
different moments of citta. Also when we hear words spoken in our own
language there is hearing and then "translating" going on, we
interpret the sounds so that we understand the meaning. The process of
translation goes on very rapidly, it goes on the whole day. When there
is seeing, visible object is experienced, but immediately we translate
what we see, we interpret it, and then we discern people and things.
If we consider the process of translation we can understand more
clearly that seeing and hearing are different from thinking. The
moments that we do not translate seeing and hearing can be studied.
Thus, no matter whether you learn a foreign language or whether you
are merely thinking after seeing or hearing, there is translating
going on time and again. No matter what we do, there are nåma and
rúpa, and sometimes sati can arise and be aware of them. We cannot
control the cittas which arise. They arise and perform their own
functions. So long as we believe that we can create conditions for the
arising of sati, the right awareness will not arise. One may believe
that there is sati when there is only ignorance of realities.
Awareness can arise if there are conditions for it. The conditions are
listening to the Dhamma and considering it. We may believe that we
have listened and considered enough, but, when there are still
misunderstandings about the Eightfold Path it is evident that our
listening and considering have not been enough. We should not assume
too soon that we studied enough. We have accumulated ignorance for
aeons and therefore it will take aeons before it can be eradicated.
This should not discourage us, but we should continue to listen, to
read and to study, and we should consider thoroughly what we learnt.
We should consider the Dhamma with regard to our own experiences in
daily life.
Råhula, the Buddha's son, attained arahatship when he was only twenty
years old. For him the conditions necessary for enlightenment were
fulfilled: he associated with the right person, the Buddha, he
listened to the Dhamma, he considered it and he developed the
Eightfold Path. We read in the Middle Length Sayings (II, no. 62,
"Greater Discourse on an Exhortation to Råhula") that Råhula asked the
Buddha how mindfulness of breathing, when it is developed and made
much of, is of great fruit, of great advantage. The Buddha did not
speak immediately about mindfulness of breathing, he first taught
Råhula about the elements of solidity, cohesion, heat, motion and
space. No matter whether these elements are internal or external, they
should not be taken for self. The Buddha then said to Råhula:
`Develop the mind-development that is like the earth, Råhula. For,
from developing the mind-development that is like the earth, Råhula,
agreeable and disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen,
taking hold of your thought, will not persist.'
In the same way the Buddha told Råhula to develop the mind-
development that is like water, fire, wind and space (air). What are
we doing when there are agreeable or disagreeable sense-impressions
that take hold of us? Do we take them for self, or can we realize them
as only elements? Råhula had to be mindful of all realities appearing
through the six doors in order to see them as only elements.
Further on we read that the Buddha encouraged Råhula to the
development of lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy,
equanimity, the contemplation of the foul and the perception of
impermanence. It was only after the Buddha had taught all this to
Råhula that he spoke about mindfulness of breathing. Råhula did not
apply himself to this subject without knowing anything. While he
applied himself to mindfulness of breathing he realized the true
nature of all nåmas and rúpas appearing through the six doors. He had
accumulated great wisdom and therefore he was able to develop
mindfulness of breathing so that it was of great fruit, of great
advantage. The Buddha said that if it was developed in that way the
final in-breaths and out-breaths too are known as they cease, they are
not unknown.
The Buddha taught Råhula about the eye, visible object and
seeing-consciousness, about all realities which appear through the six
doors. He taught Råhula until he attained arahatship. We read in the
Kindred Sayings ( IV, Saîåyatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense,
Third Fifty, Chapter II, § 121, Råhula) that it occurred to the
Buddha, while he was near Såvatthí, at the Jeta Grove, that Råhula was
ripe for the attainment of arahatship. He wanted to give Råhula the
last teachings and he said to him that they would go to Dark Wood. We
read:
`Now at that time countless thousands of devas were following the
Exalted One, thinking: "Today the Exalted One will give the venerable
Råhula the last teachings for the destruction of the åsavas."
So the Exalted One plunged into the depths of Dark Wood and sat down
at the foot of a certain tree on the seat prepared for him. And the
venerable Råhula, saluting the Exalted One, sat down also at one side.
As he thus sat the Exalted One said to the venerable Råhula:
"Now what do you think, Råhula? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"What is impermanent is that happiness or dukkha?"
"Dukkha, lord."
"Now what is impermanent, woeful, by nature changeable-is it fitting
to regard that as `This is mine. This am I. This is myself?' "
"Surely not, lord."
(The same is said about the other phenomena appearing through the
sense-doors and through the mind-door.)
Thus spoke the Exalted One. And the venerable Råhula was delighted
with the words of the Exalted One and welcomed them. And when this
instruction was given, the venerable Råhula's heart was freed from the
åsavas without grasping. And in those countless devas arose the pure
and spotless eye of the Dhamma, so that they knew: "Whatsoever is of a
nature to arise, all that is of a nature to cease." `
When we read this sutta we may find it to be a repetition of so many
suttas. We may read it countless times, but we may only have
theoretical understanding of the truth. One day the truth may be
realized but this depends on the degree of the development of paññå.
Is the eye permanent or impermanent? Is what is impermanent happiness
or dukkha? Should we take it for self? Are the other realities
permanent or impermanent? The Buddha spoke about all the realities
which appear now. If we do not yet have a keen understanding of seeing
and visible object which appear now, at this moment, if we cannot yet
distinguish between the different characteristics of nåma and of rúpa
which appear now, their arising and falling away cannot be realized.
When the Buddha asked Råhula about the true nature of realities, would
Råhula only have been thinking about nåma and rúpa, or did he at that
moment realize their true nature? We know the answer. Råhula was
mindful of realities appearing through the six doors, and thus his
wisdom could be fully developed. Otherwise he could not have attained
arahatship.
With mettå
Nina van Gorkom
Tokyo
July 15
19 71 Dear Mr. G.,
You wrote: "When I am aware of nåma and rúpa, I find that their
appearance is not always followed by wisdom about them."
We are bound to have doubts about the characteristic of sati and the
characteristic of paññå. Objects are experienced time and again
without sati. We are absorbed in pleasant objects and we have aversion
towards unpleasant objects; there are akusala cittas and there is no
mindfulness of realities. Sometimes there can be conditions for
awareness and then it arises just for a short moment. There can be
"study" with awareness of realities, such as hardness which appears or
feeling which presents itself. When there is the "study" of a
characteristic of nåma or rúpa, there is a beginning of the
development of paññå, although paññå is still weak. When you say that
the appearance of nåma and rúpa is not always followed by paññå you
assume that there is first aware-ness and that paññå follows later on.
There can be sati without there being paññå at that moment, but then
there is no development of the Eightfold Path. Sati accompanies each
kusala citta and there are many levels of sati. When there is
awareness of a characteristic of nåma or rúpa there is development of
understanding of that characteristic right at that moment. Paññå of
the Eightfold Path is not thinking about realities which have fallen
away already.
Right awareness of the Eightfold Path is difficult. There has to be
awareness of one nåma or rúpa, of one object at a time. Do realities
appear one at a time? It seems that there can be seeing and hearing or
seeing and thinking at the same time. We may have begun to study what
appears through the eyes, visible object, but is the characteristic of
seeing known already? The nåma which sees seems to be hidden, we
cannot grasp it, it seems to escape us. It is only paññå which can
know nåma and rúpa as they are. Don't we take the study of realities
for self? Then we are on the wrong way and nåma and rúpa will not be
known as they are. We have an idea that they escape us. So long as we
are not sotåpanna we have to continue to take into account that we
have wrong view and that we follow the wrong practice.
The development of the Eightfold Path is not different from developing
understanding of the reality which appears right now. If there is
awareness of visible object than that reality can be studied so that
it can be known as only a rúpa. If seeing is not the object of
awareness that reality cannot be studied and we should not try to be
aware of it. It depends on paññå which types of realities are
understood, it does not depend on us. When paññå grows there will be
conditions that more types of realities will be known. There is
hearing time and again, and we can learn that when there is hearing
only sound is heard, that words cannot be heard. There is thinking
when we distinguish different words and know their meaning. There can
be a beginning of under-standing of different characteristics and this
is the development of the Eightfold Path. We should not worry about
the moments of sati and paññå, but we should remember our goal: the
understanding of realities which appear now.
You wrote that when you do gymnastic exercises you can experience the
difference between motion and seeing the motion.
When we speak about "seeing motion", what is the reality which can be
experienced? What can be seen? Can motion be experienced through
eyesense? When we use the word motion in conventional language we
think of a whole situation, of people or things which move. We believe
that we can see people and things move. Through eyes only colour or
visible object is experienced, but seeing conditions thinking of
people and things which move. If there were not the experience of
visible object we could not think about concepts of people and things
which move. Saññå, remembrance, is the condition that we know that
there are people and things and that we can observe their movements.
As regards motion, this is a kind of rúpa, the element of wind, which
has the characteristic of motion or pressure. This type of rúpa can be
experienced through the bodysense. It is different from what we mean
by motion in conventional language.
We think of a person who moves his body, but actually there is no
person and there is not a body which stays. The body consists of the
four Great Elements of Earth (solidity), Water (cohesion), Fire
(temperature) and Wind (motion), and of other types of rúpas. The
rúpas of the body arise and then fall away immediately. There is no
living being who goes, but it is citta which conditions the movement
of the rúpas we call "our body".
There can be awareness of different realities which appear one at a
time. Through eyes only visible object appears, through bodysense
hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure can appear. A
concept of the whole body or of a person is not a reality, but the
thinking of it is real, it is nåma. We may notice that there is
thinking and just be satisfied to know that. We call it "thinking",
but do we have right understanding of it? When there is thinking there
are many different types of cittas, succeeding one another. Sometimes
there are kusala cittas, but most of the time there are akusala cittas
when we are thinking, cittas rooted in lobha, dosa and moha. We are
inclined to take the different moments of thinking as a "whole",
thinking seems to last. Do we cling to an idea of self who thinks? If
we learn to be aware of nåma and rúpa as they present themselves one
at a time, the self will begin to disintegrate.
Someone asked me: "How can we ever know different realities which
succeed one another so quickly? Do we not have to be extremely fast?"
There is no self who knows realities, it is paññå which is able to
know them. If we think that we have to be fast we cling to a concept
of self and this hinders the development of right understanding. When
there are conditions for the arising of awareness paññå will gradually
develop and it will perform its function. We should consider the
definition of paññå or non-delusion given in the Visuddhimagga (XIV,
143):
`Non-delusion has the characteristic of penetrating things according
to their individual essences, or it has the characteristic of sure
penetration, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilful
archer. Its function is to illuminate the objective field, like a
lamp. It is manifested as non-bewilderment, like a guide in a
forest....'
When paññå has been developed it is as fast as an arrow shot by a
skilful archer, and it is sure in its penetration of the true nature
of realities. It illuminates the object which is experienced so that
it is known as it really is. It is paññå, not self, which is so keen
that it knows precisely the reality which appears as it is.
It is important to know when there is clinging to awareness, it may be
so subtle that we do not notice it. The best cure is studying the
reality which appears right now. Even clinging to awareness can be
realized as a type of nåma. It arises because we have accumulated
clinging.
When paññå has not been developed we have doubt about all the
realities which appear. We do not know precisely when there is kusala
citta, when akusala citta and when vipåka-citta, citta which is the
result of kamma. Someone had a question about the nature of
vipåka-citta: "Can we know when vipåka-citta is kusala vipåka, the
result of kusala kamma, and when akusala vipåka, the result of akusala
kamma? Can we know when the object which vipåka-citta experiences is a
pleasant object and when an unpleasant object?"
We cannot always know whether an object is pleasant or unpleasant.
Moreover, we may take for pleasant what is not pleasant, since we are
attached to particular things with which we are familiar. When we see
something there is visible object which impinges on the eyesense.
Seeing is vipåka-citta and it experiences only visible object. It does
not experience things such as a house or a tree. Those are concepts
which are experienced by cittas arising in a mind-door process. There
are sense-door processes and mind-door processes succeeding one
another very quickly. When we are looking at something there are
eye-door processes and mind-door processes. Visible object impinges on
the eye-door time and again and it is hard to tell when visible object
which is pleasant and when visible object which is unpleasant impinges
on the eyesense. It is difficult to know which of the many moments of
seeing and hearing are kusala vipåka and which akusala vipåka. Akusala
vipåka and kusala vipåka arise in different processes of citta but
cittas succeed one another so quickly that what are in fact countless
cittas seem to be one moment.
We do not clearly distinguish between different realities, we "join"
them together. When we think of vipåka, we usually think of a whole
situation. For example we think that being in a swimmingpool is kusala
vipåka and we cling to this situation. When I was swimming there was
at one moment the experience of a pleasant object through the
bodysense, at another moment an unpleasant object. When we enjoy doing
something like swim-ming, we do not always notice it when the object
which is experienced is unpleasant. The object is unpleasant when, for
example, the temperature of the water is just a little too cold. We
are ignorant of the realities which appear one at a time. Swimmingpool
is not a reality which can be directly experienced. Phenomena such as
cold, softness, attachment or aversion are realities which can be
directly experienced when they present themselves one at a time.
Vipåka is such a short moment, why should we try to find out whether
it is kusala vipåka or akusala vipåka? When the vipåka has already
fallen away we continue to think about it. We find it so important
whether there is kusala vipåka or akusala vipåka in our life. We
regret the days when there is a great deal of akusala vipåka and we
think of a "self" who has to receive it. Vipåka is the result of
kamma. It arises just for a moment and then it falls away. When we
hear unpleasant words the experience of sound is a moment of vipåka
and it falls away immediately. At the moment of hearing we do not know
the meaning of the words yet. When we know the meaning there is
thinking, and then there are usually akusala cittas which think with
aversion about those words. We cannot change what has happened, but
what can be done is the development of right understanding of
realities. It is essential to know when there is kusala citta, when
akusala citta and when vipåka-citta, but we should not try to find out
whether the vipåka was kusala vipåka or akusala vipåka. Seeing, for
example, is vipåka and after it has fallen away there are kusala
cittas or akusala cittas, but most of the time there are akusala
cittas. We are attached to visible object or we have aversion towards
it. It is important to know these types of akusala cittas which arise
after the vipåka-citta.
Someone asked me whether it is possible to have kusala cittas after
akusala vipåka and akusala cittas after kusala vipåka.
There can be kusala cittas after akusala vipåka and akusala cittas
after kusala vipåka, because the conditions for these different types
of cittas are entirely different. Vipåka-citta is the result of kamma,
a deed committed in the past. Akusala cittas and kusala cittas are
conditioned by our accumulations of akusala and kusala.
I will give an example of an unpleasant object after the experience of
which there can be different types of citta, kusala citta or akusala
citta, depending on one's accumulations. If one sees a dead cat,
different types of citta may arise on account of what is seen. We may
think of the dead cat without awareness of realities and we may take
the cat for "something" which stays. We may have aversion towards it.
What is the dead cat? When we are looking there is visible object,
when we touch it there is hardness or softness. Through the nose odour
presents itself. It is because of saññå, remembrance, that a "whole",
the dead cat, is remembered. In reality there is no dead cat, there
are only different elements arising and falling away. Someone who has
developed calm may have kusala cittas with calm when he sees a dead
cat. He may take it as a meditation subject, the foulness of the body.
He may remember that also his own body is subject to decay. If he has
accumulated skill for jhåna, jhåna can be attained with this subject.
Someone who develops vipassanå can be reminded of the true nature of
realities, their nature of impermanence and anattå. He is aware of
whatever nåma or rúpa presents itself at that moment in order to know
realities as they are. He may even at that moment attain enlightenment.
It all depends on one's accumulations whether there are, after having
seen a foul object, akusala cittas, mahå-kusala citta (kusala cittas
of the sense-sphere), jhåna-cittas or lokuttara cittas. The
"cemetery-meditations" are included in the "Applications of
Mindfulness", under the section of "Mindfulness of the Body". We read
in the "Satipaììhåna-sutta" (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 10):
`And again, monks, as a monk might see a body thrown aside in a
cemetery, dead for one day or for two days or for three days, swollen,
discoloured, decomposing; he focuses on this body itself*, thinking:
"This body, too, is of a similar nature, a similar constitution, it
has not got past that (state of things)."¤It is thus too, monks, that
a monk fares along contemplating the body in the body.'
This passage can be applied by all who develop vipassanå, no matter
whether they have first developed the "cemetery-meditations" as a
meditation subject of samatha or not. What we take for our body are
only elements which are each moment subject to decay. We should
"contemplate the body in the body", we should not take it for
something which stays, for "self".
In the Visuddhimagga (I, 55) we read about the monk Mahå Tissa who met
a woman when he was walking in the village. When she was smiling he
saw her teeth and attained arahatship. We read:
It seems that while the Elder was going on his way from Cetiyapabbata
to Anurådhapura for alms, a certain daughter-in-law of a clan, who had
quarrelled with her husband and had set out early from Anurådhapura
all dressed up and tricked out like a celestial nymph to go to her
relatives' home, saw him on the road, and being low-minded, she
laughed a loud laugh. (Wondering) "What is that?", the Elder looked
up, and finding in the bones of her teeth the perception of foulness
(ugliness), he reached arahatship. Hence it was said:
`He saw the bones that were her teeth,
And kept in mind his first perception;
And standing on that very spot
The Elder became an arahat.'
But her husband who was going after her saw the Elder and
asked, "Venerable sir, did you by any chance see a
woman?" The Elder told him:
"Whether it was a man or woman
That went by I noticed not;
But only that on this high road
There goes a group of bones."
Did you note the Elder's answer? Was he attached to concepts such as
"man", "woman"? Did he take what he perceived for self? He saw the
body in the body; he was aware of realities. Because of his
accumulated wisdom he did not take what he saw for a being, a "self
"--he only saw a group of bones, something foul. How often do we take
for beautiful what is foul. He realized nåma and rúpa as they are and
attained arahatship.
Those who have developed both samatha and vipassanå may, when they
have seen something foul, have jhånacittas which have foulness as
their object. It depends on one's accumulations whether or not
jhånacittas arise. But in order to know things as they are, one should
see the body in the body, feelings in the feelings, citta in citta,
dhamma in dhamma. In other words, one should realize the true nature
of the reality which appears at this moment.
The Visuddhimagga explains, just before the passage about Mahå Tissa,
the virtue of restraint of the faculties (indriya-saóvara-síla). There
is this kind of síla when there is mindfulness of realities appearing
through the six doors. When there is mindfulness and understanding of
the objects experienced through the six doors these doors are
"guarded" against akusala. The Visuddhimagga states: "He apprehends
what is really there¤"
Do we "apprehend what is really there", or do we have wrong view? Do
we take realities for permanent and for self instead of being mindful
of them? We do not have to refrain from thinking about concepts but
there can be less clinging to them. When we think of concepts such as
"man" or "woman" we can remember that thinking is a reality which can
be object of mindfulness. It is only a kind of nåma arising because of
conditions, not self. It is because of saññå that we remember that
this is a man and that a woman. Whatever reality is the object of
mindfulness depends on sati, not on a self. The Elder, because of his
accumulations, did not notice a woman, but there was the perception of
foulness and then he realized things as they are. In that way he was
not absorbed in the idea of a woman, akusala cittas did not arise on
account of what was seen. However, even the thinking of a woman who
smiles can be the object of awareness, and after that enlightenment
can be attained if paññå has been developed to that extent. Any kind
of reality can be the object of sati and we should not try to select
particular objects. If we select particular objects we will not see
things as they are, as realities which arise because of their own
conditions and which are beyond control, anattå.
The Visuddhimagga (I, 56) continues after the passage about Mahå Tissa
with the explanation of the virtue of restraint of the faculties:
`¤if he, if that person, left the eye faculty unguarded, remained with
the eye-door unclosed by the door-panel of mindfulness, these states
of covetousness, etc. might invade, might pursue, might threaten, him.
He enters upon the way of its restraint: he enters upon the way of
closing that eye faculty by the door-panel of mindfulness. It is the
same one of whom it is said he guards the eye faculty, undertakes the
restraint of the eye faculty.'
This does not mean that we should avoid seeing or hearing, there are
conditions for the arising of these realities. If the doorways are
unguarded akusala cittas arise on account of what is experienced. We
take the object for permanent or for self, we do not know what is
really there. When there is, after seeing, hearing or the experiences
through the other doors, the development of understanding, the doors
are guarded.
With mettå
Nina van Gorkom
-----
[1]The indrayas or faculties which have to be developed are: faith,
energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom.
[2]With the least attainment.
[3]At the moment of access-concentration the citta is not yet
jhåna-citta, but the hindrances are temporarily suppressed.
[4]See the Mahå-satipaììhåna sutta (Dígha Nikåya, Dialogues 11, no. 22.
[5]Rúpa-jhånas can be counted as four stages or as five stages. In the
first and second stage of jhåna of the "fourfold system" and in the
third second and third stage of the "five-fold system" píti arises. It
is abondoned in the higher stages of jhåna.
[6]Translated in The Way of Mindfulness by Soma Thera, B.P.S. Kandy, Sri
Lanka.
|