Dear friends,

The Pali term attå includes everything that is taken for a thing as a whole, not as it is. Even sound itself is not just a sound; many processes experience that very shortly. All together come to be nimitta (sign), nimitta of different sounds. We live in the world of not understanding what comes together and appears as something, no mattter we call it dead body or living body, as “I”. It is something there, not you. The hardness is hardness, no matter where, smell is smell, no matter where. Smell is not to be taken for the smell of flowers, smell is just smell. When you take it for something, it is the meaning of attå. No matter in the sense of I, you, dog, cat. It is attå, something. Different by appearance, (experienced) through different doorways. 

Tan Than: Paññå helps to see that there is nothing? How towards vipassanå ñåna?

Acharn: These are so many words. Better talk about each word, to have more understanding as it is. 

Tan: Direct understanding. 

Acharn: One word: understanding and direct understanding. Is there “I” now?

Tan: There is not “I” now.

Acharn: What is that which is not “I”? Only one word at a time.

Actually, there is no understanding of the truth which is so very deep, such as no “I” at all.  So what is there now? Which is not “I”? Just one word: what is there now?

Tan: Seeing. 

Acharn: Is there direct understanding of seeing? Or is there just hearing the word seeing? There is seeing, there is the idea of “I understand seeing”. What is the truth of that seeing? This is the way to understand the teachings of the Buddha which are so very deep. Only one moment, just one word. When we talk about seeing, what is seeing? Otherwise there cannot be understanding of seeing. 

How does seeing arise?

Tan: because of conditions.

Acharn: What conditions seeing?

Tan: Object and life.

Acharn: When there is no seeing is there still life? This is too far away from understanding only the seeing. There is a lot of thinking whether there is direct understanding or not yet. There must be talking about seeing in order to know: right understanding knows it as intellectual understanding, not yet direct awareness.  

Tan: What is direct awareness?

Acharn: Can there be the understanding of seeing as it is? The understanding of “no I”. What is the difference between intellectual understanding and direct understanding? 

Tan: Intellectual understanding understands: I see, with “I” in there.

Acharn: We are talking about what seeing is, to understand the direct understanding of seeing. 

Even if you don’t say it, there is seeing. There are conditions for seeing and seeing appears right now. It sees, but the characteristic of seeing does not appear. We just know that there is seeing when something is there to be seen. What about the understanding of seeing? No understanding of it. “I see”, is that the understanding of seeing? It sees, it is not thinking. No direct understanding of any object. There are not enough conditions to understand what is meant. 

————

Nina.