· DUKKHA ·

· PAYING ATTENTION TO DUKKHA ·

· AND EASING DUKKHA ·

by

a venerable Teacher monk who does not wish to publish his name

Preamble

The Dhamma of the practice, which you will read here next, are the writings of a teacher monk who did not wish to publish his name, which he wrote from 2535to 2538 BE¹for the purpose of reading it himself. Venerable Maha Bunchu Sukhumalo thought that it is likely to be of benefit for the practitioners. Therefore, he took the writings to make a new adaptation that can be read in an easy and more understandable way. Nevertheless, he has made an effort to keep the original style of writing as much as possible.

Dukkha · Paying Attention to Dukkha · Easing Dukkha ²

The instruction given by the teacher to know the cause or reason before making use of a posture (iriyā-patha),³or before performing the various small and big tasks, has the purpose of cleansing or preventing the craving (tanhā), that is, the delight-satisfaction (say, happiness-comfortableness) that would enter to abide when using the new posture.

To pay attention to the cause in this way makes the usage of the posture to take place with purity (pārisuddhi) and has a succeeding result reaching out to the new posture arising in the future. As it goes along with purity from craving, it is a supporting condition that opens an opportunity for understanding (paññā) to come to know, in accordance with the truth, what rūpa[material phenomenon] the new arisen posture is.

Are we sure which category it is?

We can classify the changing of the posture of the different kinds of individuals in accordance with the power of skilful attention(yoniso-manasikāra) or unskilful attention (ayoniso-manasikāra), as well as the other factors that participate in the changing of the posture, too, such as understanding, restraint, mindfulness, observation, etc: ⁴

First category—The changing of the posture of standard individuals. When changing the minor⁵and major postures, it is done in some respect according to the power of the result of action (vipāka) (the various dukkhas) and in some other respect according to the power of defilement (desire, unawareness). It is a fact that even though these individuals can also be aware that dukkha –the oppression or exertion of pressure [to change]– has already taken place in the posture they are sustaining, but because they haven’t listened closely enough to the good friend kalyānamitta’sinstructions, when dukkha occurs in such posture, they change it abruptly, partly following their feelings or emotions and partly their habituation.⁶In short, this is to change according to the power of the defilements, which means to change following the power of ignorance or desire.

Second category—The changing of the posture of some individuals who havelistened closely to the good friend kalyānamitta’sinstructions—and in due course go to a secluded place (viveka) to train themselves according to what they understood from what they had listened to—that entirely all the postures are dukkha, and that there’s a necessity that keeps oppressing, exerting pressure, forcing us to proceed [to change]; it is not that the changing takes place due to desire, wanting, or habit, as we assume.

But because such listening closely does not yet consist of a sufficiently adequate awareness or understanding, these practitioners are thus not yet acquainted or habituated with the various intrinsic natures of natural phenomena that work together simultaneously. They still cannot separate, for instance, how do “thinking” and “awareness” differ from each other, what is regarded as “to keep restraint” and what as “to not keep restraint”, what are the characteristics of the workings of the natural phenomena known as “yoniso-manasikāra”. Therefore, due to this yet inadequate [direct experience-]understanding, when they sustain any of the postures, for instance, the sitting mode, they turn to mental recitation, to labelling conceptual verbal expressions by way of thinking or recalling in their minds continually, like this: “sitting-rūpa, sitting-rūpa;” when dukkha arises in the sitting mode, they mentally recite like this: “the sitting-rūpa is dukkha, therefore I have to change in order to relieve the dukkha”, and then they proceed to change; and when sustaining [109]the new posture they’ll go on to mentally recite “walking-rūpa, walking-rūpa,” and so on.

This means that mindfulness and clear comprehension did not arise during the changing of the posture or the contemplation of the posture, but it consisted only of keeping in mind the instructions contained in the handbook or the teacher’s instructions that they listened to. Which in short is merely for the sake of following the instructions of the teacher, with no true awareness seeking to comprehend reality until reaching the intrinsic nature of thesitting-rūpa and the dukkha that is happening at that moment.

Third category—The changing of the posture of some individuals who begin to have understanding and are able to analyze to see the difference between “thinking/recalling” and “awareness/direct experience”. For example, when sitting they are able to have the awareness (sati) go out to know at the sitting-mode, being aware at once that the body is being sustained in such [particular] way, and they keep restraint regarding the sitting-mode. Also when dukkha occurs, they are able to know that such sitting-mode is dukkha, that they have already made contact with the oppression-dukkha.⁷

But when there’s more of this kind of awareness, they immediately recall the teacher’s instruction: “Dukkha has already arisen, so I have to change to relieve dukkha”, or otherwise they mentally recite conceptual verbal expressions in their minds, and then they proceed to change the posture. This is still likewise considered as an individual that has no yoniso-manasikāra in the relieving of dukkha (there’s no paying attention to dukkha), because it is only thinking, recalling, mentally reciting, the teacher’s instructions. But the awareness or direct experience that one has to change because dukkha is exerting pressure did not really arise. When the practitioner has not performed the cause, that is, s/he has not paid to the dukkha immediately apparent any attention in this way, the result, that is, the awareness that one changes in order to relieve dukkha, cannot arise. Therefore, the changing of the posture still proceeds by the power of the very defilement itself.

Fourth category—The changing of the posture of some individuals who have medium understanding, because when they’re sustaining the body at the sitting-mode they’re able to have the mindfulness go out to know at such mode that is sitting, and just the same they keep restraint -when dukkha arises, they are aware at once that such sitting-mode is already dukkha. And they are still able to comprehend one more truth, namely, at what part of the sitting-mode the dukkha that has arisen has arisen at; this enables them to contact the condition that is exerting pressure on them [forcing them (to change)], which takes place in conjunction with the awareness of the sitting-mode itself.

It happens like this owing to the presence of the power of restraint—the mind is not sent somewhere else—thus the practitioner is aware at once and the same time of both the mode that sits and the dukkha that is exerting pressure on him. At that time, dukkha, namely, the oppression or exertion of pressure, which is evident in the sitting-mode, becomes an indicator (a factor that points towards or informs) that causes the mode to become immediately apparent to the awareness that arises at that moment: “I’m not able to sustain the sitting mode anymore; I’m already compelled to move⁸and use a new posture.”

When this kind of awareness occurs, the posture is then changed accordingly, but throughout the very changing of the posture the practitioner will get lost in daydreaming, s/he will drop the awareness⁹and leave from the mode on which s/he was keeping restraint. The mind will either be sent ahead to think of the new posture that will appear in a future time or it will be dispatched to other objects. This is equal to let the usage of the posture have its own way until coming to an end at the new posture through lack of mindfulness. When it happens this way, it is regarded as being utterly impossible to cleanse the mind to purify it from the gladness-satisfaction that relies on the new posture.

In brief, because the practitioner has dropped restraint during the changing of the posture, the changing of such posture still proceeds by the power of defilement. It gives defilement an opening through which to flow in to abide in the posture that is being changed and to continue its way to the new posture that will arise in the future, too.

All this can be explained as: When the old posture is being oppressed by dukkha, craving cannot enter to abide in that posture, because craving is not fond of dukkha. However, craving is closely observing and waiting [for the right moment to get the chance] to enter to abide in the new posture¹⁰–it does this just simply following its own nature, which is to like sukha (pleasure, good feeling, comfortableness) [and (consequently) abhor dukkha]. That being the case, even though the practitioner is able to give rise to the supporting conditions that generate skilful attention and know that: “this posture is exerting pressure already, I’m compelled to change in order to relieve dukkha,” but at the moment of changing the posture s/he drops the restraint, it means s/he lacks mindfulness and the associated factors that arise with mindfulness[sampayutta dhamma], which are what prevent the stream of craving to torrentially flow in. Thereby, the craving that is already in the wait gets an opening through which it enters immediately, affecting the arising new posture. When craving is neatly abiding [in the new posture], the knowledge of which rūpa(asamoha-sampajañña) the new posture is, will not arise, because the object is no longer pure.

Fifth category—The changing of the posture of some individuals who have a thorough understanding, due to being individuals that at the time of sitting are able to have the awareness go out to know at the mode that is sitting, and when dukkha arises they also have restraint. They are aware at once both of the mode that is sitting, and the condition that is exerting pressure. Such condition is the dukkha that takes place within the awareness (“thesitting-rūpais dukkha”) that the posture cannot be sustained any longer – it has to be moved, changed.

Moreover, when they make use of the postures, the movement-mode that is happening, still takes place by the power of restraint. They do not drop restraint along the way, i.e., they begin to keep restraint before the changing, during the changing, and as far as to the new posture. They take cognizance of both the posture mode and the dukkha that occurs; and they keep restraint the whole time.

When it is thus, there’ll be consequences reaching out to the new posture, by making it free of ulterior craving, which didn’t get the chance to come in and staydue to the power of restraint. And there’s still also an additional impact: it gives the opportunity to be aware of which rūpathe new posture is.

When performing the cause correctly… the effect will be correct¹¹

Just by relying on restraintat the moment of using the postures –for example, at the time of being in the sitting-mode–, this becomes a conditioning factor that generates yoniso-manasikāra(skilful attention) to the dukkha occurring in such sitting-rūpa, by not having to do anything extra or something special or additional, because from the beginning the sitting-mode has been apparent already to the awareness, so when dukkha occurs in such sitting-mode, one knows along that such sitting-mode is dukkha, or that dukkha has already occurred at such sitting-mode —both things are known: dukkha and [right after] that the sitting-mode is dukkha.

When awareness –restraint– remains, then the intrinsic nature of oppression, of exertion of pressure, will display its own true nature by itself. For instance, which intrinsic nature of oppression it is (which dukkha it is, because there are various kinds of dukkhas), at which part of the sitting-mode it is appearing (where is the dukkha arising, because every different kind of dukkha has its own particular location). But it is not about paying attention with the purpose of becoming acquainted with dukkha’s names: “now, this is pain-and-aching dukkha,” “now, this is hunger dukkha,” “now, this is thirst dukkha.” Nor it is to pay attention in order to have awareness arise: “oh… dukkha has occurred at the waist, it has occurred at the belly, at the neck,” and so on.

How is reality’s intrinsic nature [i.e., rūpa-nāma]displaying itself? We understand according to that [whatever way reality is displaying itself] without having to bring in concepts (names, language) to superintend (to manage or to be in charge). We let it be solely the concern of that particular awareness itself [of the moment of consciousness (citta) with its accompanying mental factors (cetasika) that is taking place], only to build an understanding of the intrinsic nature in accordance with the reality that is displaying itself (we have already studied adequately enough the theoretical aspect). The modus operandi we have mentioned at the beginning called, “to have yoniso-manasikāra[skilfully attention] in dukkha or to [skilfully] pay attention to dukkha,” concerns the [aspect of] performing the cause.

This is cause and effect according to what we have already studied. Cause: to have yoniso-manasikārain dukkha. Effect: the awareness that we are compelled to use the postures to relieve dukkha because the actual posture cannot be maintained any longer which we then have to change. Or, in other words, our duty is to perform the cause correctly, then the correct result will follow by itself.

To pay attention to the cause (dukkha) in expectation of a result

Some individuals, because they rely on having listened carefully in a satisfactory way about yoniso-manasikāra’s modus operandi and the result that arises from having yoniso-manasikāra, when they truly begin to work, [that is, when they start to practice], the knowledge that they had already listened to, will follow into such work (yoniso-manasikāra) steadily.

Even though the practitioner is actually able to separate “thinking” from “awareness”, but his paying attention to dukkha (performing the cause) inclines towards making a result happen, such paying attention to dukkha will be transformed into arranging things (into ‘watch and wait’ or harbouring a particular intention), erroneously departing from what is natural.¹²The consequence of this impure way of paying attention is that the understanding that realizes the fact that therūpais dukkha, that one is compelled to change in order to relieve the dukkha, cannot arise.

This is regarded as stillarranging thingseven though there’s an absence of mental activity in terms of concepts and verbalization. But still it is to perform the cause to then wait for the result that is going to crop up.

Please let me repeat and expand a little bit: at the time the practitioner is in the sitting-mode, s/he has an intention set in advance: “in a moment dukkha will happen, I will have to pay attention to it, and then the awareness that I am forced to change in order to relieve dukkha will arise.” To have this set in the mind beforehand, means to have an intention in advance, and this causes the mind to inclinetowards the effect that will arise in the future. Consequently, when dukkha takes place, this paying attention to that dukkha gets transformed instead into arranging things up(i.e., paying attention to the cause in expectation of a result). When the cause is not pure, the result will therefore also not be pure.

Craving… expects in advance

Mindfulness… knows the immediate

The practitioner ought to consider the following:

First point. No matter the task that is being done, such as contemplating the posture or paying attention to the dukkha (being aware of the dukkha), etc., it has to be something with which one is being faced [at that moment], meaning there has to be an occurrence appearing in the immediate [moment]¹³first, and then one proceeds to act [e.g., to apply skilful attention and then change]. If it is about paying attention to dukkha, dukkha must appear in the immediate [moment] first, and then one pays attention to it. Don’t reckon, don’t pursue an intention in advance: “dukkha will arise shortly, and then it is when I’ll pay attention.” Whatever appears as the present-moment [object], our task is to pursue the study of such reality.

Past and future objects have no real intrinsic nature to be studied. If one pays attention to them, the mind will drop the present-moment. Going back to recall an object in the past, might be the search of something that has ceased already to become the object. As to the mind that inclines to look for an object in the future, this is to arrange things, to try to do things correctly, by fearing that they will be done incorrectly. Therefore, one ought to pay attention at the immediate present-moment object only—if it is done correctly or incorrectly, it is a matter that directly concerns to the present-moment—it is not a matter of anticipating, reckoning, expecting, or being determined to make it right.

Second point. The Dhamma (teaching) that one has heard or listened to already should be able to elucidate and differentiate what dhammas¹⁴are causes and what dhammas are result/effect. Our duty will be only to perform the cause(s), to pay attention to the causes, to observe or supervise [sikkhati orpārihārika-paññā] the performing of the causes. As to the result(s), that should arise from such performance of the causes, from paying attention to the cause(s), it is not our task that we should pay attention inclining the mind towards (the result), to watch and wait for the result, to keep an eye on the arising of the result, and so forth.

Unless the result has arisen already, has taken place already, then such dhamma [condition or factor] is regarded as worthy of study. It is information that will later allow us to observe what in which way is correct or incorrect, in which way the mind adjusts itself (yoniso- or ayoniso-manasikāra), and how are the causes performed so that we get this correct or that incorrect result. This is information to go on with the adjustment and supervision of the practice.

As much as keeping restraint (mindfulness) is sufficient

If the practitioner has been keeping restraint with the sitting-mode, when dukkha arises with that sitting-mode, it’ll be natural for the mind to go along and be aware, or informed, of the dukkha that has arisen, in addition to the awareness that such sitting-mode is dukkha. It arises by itself, naturally. This let’s us see that keeping restraint (mindfulness) at the immediate object that is presenting itself, is a conditioning factor (hetu-paccaya) to have skilful attention when paying attention to dukkha, without the need to arrange things or have awareness increase more.

This happens just due to the presence of the power of restraint. In this way one can reach to the intrinsic nature of dukkha (oppression, the exerting of pressure) that is arising at that moment. This shows that dukkha already reported which [type of] dukkha it itself is and in what location of the sitting-mode it did arise, without any need to drop keeping restraint on the sitting-mode and then go to pay attention to dukkha in a specialway— because the awareness of both the sitting-mode and dukkha happens simultaneously.

[There should be] dukkha to what extent… so that one must change, [i.e.,] must relieve?¹⁵

The heart/mind that keeps restraint of the immediate intrinsic nature causes the awareness to be able to comprehend dukkha’s modus operandi and the relieving of the dukkha that is displaying itself. So there’s no need to, additionally, keep making judgments or reckoning up anything: “Dukkha has advanced to which level already? How much must I [still] allow the dukkha to augment so that it becomes suitable to change due to the necessity?” If there are still this kind of judgments and considerations, it is an indicator that the heart/mind that arranges things (that “doeskammaṭṭhāna”) is still happening; the heart/mind is still unordinary.

(We need to take into account the fact that we are spectators, therefore we must watch to follow what is shown—[i.e.,] we don’t come here to train in drama or performing arts.)

Dukkha tells [by itself]… it is not us who have to [re]tell it is dukkha

Only with the power of having restraint on the object that is immediately appearing, observation [supervision] takes place with a heart/mind that is normal and ordinary according to nature, and the comprehension of the truth of the phenomenon or occurrence takes place easily just as when we are living our life ordinarily at the time of not practicing. With such ordinariness, at the instant we are aware of dukkha’s arising, we use the posture by the power of the dukkha that is exerting pressure on us or is forcing us [to change]. Only that the way in which we use the postures [in day-to-day life] takes place by the power of habituation, [i.e.,] by the desire to change: we want to change in order to have dukkha disappear, and then get comfortableness or pleasure (the result of volitional action (vipāka) is a supporting condition for defilement; defilement relies on the arising vipāka).

When the practitioner relies on having listened [i.e., studied the theoretical aspect] satisfactorily—such as having listened that the postures take place [i.e., are changed] because dukkha oppresses or exerts pressure [on us], (i.e., the condition that oppresses or exerts pressure causes that the postures must happen), etc.—as soon as the heart/mind comes up against the immediate object which is appearing, if s/he has restraint and skilful attention, s/he’ll know and understand instantly that the intrinsic natures about which s/he listened [i.e., which s/he studied theoretically] are just like this, their modus operandi proceeds just in this way. This demonstrates that the knowledge or understanding that arises from the object (i.e., that has the object as supporting condition (paccaya) or is displayed by the object that is appearing, occurring, informing, indicating) is just the natural modus operandi that is taking place in this way.

What you think, it is not real — what is real, it is not as you think

Do not, in a steady and serious way, assume (sammuti), conceptualize (paññati), name or draw pictures in your mind that the characteristic features, the working, the arising of the different dhammas that are used in contemplation, such as mindfulness, skilful attention, understanding, restraint, observation, etc.,have to be like this or like that; or go as far as to presume that the intrinsic natures of the objects, namely, rūpa andnāma, when they become apparent to the awareness, must be like this or like that. If there’s this kind of intentionality, this will be conducive for the heart/mind to not be natural or ordinary at the time of practicing, due to having an inclination beforehand, watching, seeing in an analytical way, making judgments, concluding, comparing so as to prove the intrinsic nature of the realities [i.e., nāma-rūpa] that arise. But the knowledge and understanding that is assumed, and the pictures drawn in our minds, is what bars (coats, conceals, overshadows, hinders) us from comprehending the true intrinsic nature [of phenomena, i.e., nāma-rūpa]: whenever the awareness explores it gets obstructed, whenever it tries to prove, it finds assumptions (conventions: sammuti).

Even if sometimes, on some occasions, conditioning factors suitably arise together, thus allowing us to comprehend the intrinsic nature of reality—there is correct awareness when realities [i.e., dhammas or nāma-and-rūpa]present themselves or make themselves apparent ([this refers to] the contemplation stage)—but because we have in advance drawn our own pictures of the dhammas in our minds already, we overlook or do not pay attention to those realities. This causes us to neglect the realities that are immediately presenting themselves because we are so caught up in waiting, in having expectations about things that we ourselves have depicted, assumed, appointed.

(The spectator follows the play, watches what is being shown. But the director of the play watches with the desire to have it according to his liking.)

Not eating the mangosteen¹⁶with peel

The more thoroughly and deeply the practitioner has listened, the more helpful it will be for his practice. Listening a lot, abundantly, listening thoroughly in all angles and perspectives, and all steps, in the sense of sutamayapaññā (understanding through listening, or studying), generates easiness and convenience at the time of observing and scanning the truth of the intrinsic natures and building understanding about the modus operandi of the workings of mentality¹⁷or the different dhammas [mental factors] that come in to work together. Even though practicing, the practitioner can differentiate between a dhamma about which s/he listened [a past conceptual object happening through memory] and a present-moment dhamma which does not need to rely on concepts.” When the practitioner can tell the difference in this way it is called, “not eating the mangosteen with peel.”

Eating the mangosteen with peel

But once the practitioner has listened and studied already, s/he can either make use of such knowledge correctly or incorrectly, in a beneficial or else harmful way, it can assist and support the practice or else hinder it. How much so? In which way? Well, that will depend on the practitioner himself: After having listened (to the teachers), does s/he understand well or remember properly or not? After having listened, is s/he able to apply the knowledge to the practice or not? The practitioner must keep observing, checking his own practice, so that no arrangingor “doingkammaṭṭhāna”arises. Because otherwise there’ll be expectations to get, to know, to see as to what s/he had listened to. S/he’ll have to arrange, to do, to keep on directing the work incessantly, if not —if s/he doesn’t arrange, doesn’t do, doesn’t label or mentally recite— s/he’ll be afraid of not being aware in the way of what s/he listened to. Making use of the concepts [i.e., the theoretical information] in this way is called, “eating the mangosteen with peel.”

Understanding what one listened to

The practitioner must be familiar with telling the difference between dhammas that are causes and dhammas that are results.The practitioner’s only duty is to pay attention regarding the causes, observe and supervise the performance of such causes. Whatever results from the performance of causes, it is not the practitioner’s duty to be interested in “How is it going to arise?” “Once it has arisen, what intrinsic nature, characteristics, feeling will it have?” When the result has already arisen, one will know and understand by oneself.

To know who you are: that which is taking place

The practitioner must understand that the practice of the Dhamma has different stages, starting from the first stage, and then the middle stage and the highest stage. In which stage are we then? One must know oneself [i.e., to know in which stage are we], and then bring the teaching in to make use of it and adjust it according to one’s stage, to supervise according to one’s condition in a suitable way that will be beneficial and convenient for the practice. For example, regarding restraint, the new practitioners ought to understand how to have restraint, to what extent should they have restraint, so as to not command or control: “I should not lose the style as of those who already know how to have restraint, how to practice.”In this regard, some new practitioners start with sense-restraint¹⁸at once, without knowing at with stage they are. If one knows oneself, knows how to use the Dhamma (i.e., the teaching of Satipaṭṭhāna), then the practice will be convenient, suitable, and the Dhamma will be beneficial.

What is real is silently mute. What can be spoken is not real.

One should understand that the theoretical aspect (pariyatti) that one has listened to, no matter how meticulously, only concerns concepts (paññati), verbalization, language.

With regard to each intrinsic nature that we must use, we must prove that such reality exists within ourselves—it is not at all within a textbook.

When we have listened to and studied the words of the teacher, we proceed by laying aside such understanding, then, at the time of actually doing the job, it is when we bring back the understanding that was put away and put it into action. Otherwise it will consist only of knowledge that we tell to ourselves, which our heart/mind and awareness have not discovered by going out to make [real] contact, to touch, and make it evident to the kind of awareness that penetrates into the intrinsic nature in accordance with the truth that is taking place, that is displaying itself. This therefore causes what executes(mindfulness and clear comprehension) to not to have the opportunity to blend with the real job, and what studies(mindfulness and clear comprehension) to not have the opportunity to follow closely the true modus operandi. It is not that at the time of doing the work we bring knowledge according to a format—concepts, language, verbalization—to label and mentally recite, to think and imagine, to keep directing and reiterating.

What all this means is that we are not giving reality or truth an opportunity to work. Even though reality points out, teaches, shows, we are most probably unable to prove and comprehend the truth. Sowe should bring into use the understanding [derived] from what we listened to, and not bring the words, language, concepts that we listened to and use them in the form of thinking or labelling. If we have understood correctly what we listened to, then we’ll make a correct use (of such knowledge).

The good student must not select the teacher

Practitioners must have a disposition towards being students, that is, they have the duty to study with a neutral mind, to study both what is correct and what is incorrect by paying attention skilfully, or understanding first that all dhammas (those which contemplate as well as those which are contemplated) have the same value.

There’s no way for a dhamma to be better or worse than another, completely all of them [i.e., both kusala and akusala] are teachers showing us the whole truth. One ought to pay attention skilfully, that is, not to select between what one likes and dislikes. But the contemplation practice itself must include selection, selection of contemplation objects for the purpose of convenience with regards to the practice.

When we start to practice, although one has listened adequately already, defilement, that is, arranging, “doingkammaṭṭhāna,” the feeling that one is a practitioner, liking and disliking, etc., can still arise as a common occurrence. One ought to understand that everything proceeds according to causes and conditions, there’s nothing incorrect. Moreover, one should pay attention correctly in this way: “This (defilement) is our teacher that has come to teach us, instruct us, hint at us thatit itself [defilement itself] is just this way, its reality is just like this. I have performed the causes in this way —I paid attention unskilfully, didn’t I? Therefore it (the defilement) arose. Now how should I continue to adjust/supervise?”

When we feel deep affection for our teacher, when we don’t reject our teacher, then we have an opportunity to get more knowledge and lessons from our teacher. Or else we might say that knowing right or wrong takes place directly at the doing of the job; we must start to do the job, then the job itself will keep telling, keep presenting the results.

After that we rely on observation and on the understanding derived from what one has adequately listened to already. We keep paying close attention, supervising, adjusting the job to conform correctly to the path in a progressive manner. For example, when one is aware of, discovers, grasps, observes: “right at this spot, right now, at this moment, I have erred, I’m wrong, mistaken, I’m still not impartial with reality on a regular basis,” it is a condition that allows one to adjust, supervise, amend, revise, to have the correct path to increasingly correspond to the understanding we got from having listened satisfactorily.

Thus, “knowing and understanding” are very important, that is to say, if it is incorrect one knows it is incorrect, one will have the opportunity to make adjustments; if it is correct one knows it is correct, one is performing causes and conditions that will give rise to an increasingly correct practice.

The practitioners must adjust their minds (pay attention skilfully) in this way. But if they work in order to expect a result, to aim at the work’s results, such as desiring to practice correctly, desiring to be aware, to see in this way and that way, then it is a motive that makes us dislike the incorrect [practice], dislike making mistakes, makes us develop an aversion for unwholesomeness, makes us unhappy with problems, impediments, and all these various forms of inconveniences. The heart/mind cannot be pure because a mind that is expecting a result is a defiled mind (kilesa), [a mind defiled with] ignorance (avijjā), craving, conceit, wrong-view. Thus the practitioners will not have the chance to learn neither about the postures (object, ārammaṇa) nor about what knows[the citta andcetasikas], due to being embedded only in their expectations and their desires in this way.

Theguṇa¹⁹of the teachers we feel deep affection for is evident in their teachings

As our father and mother have taken care of us and taught us well

The cause for not having sutamayapaññā (understanding through listening)

1. This kind of understanding has two aspects: the theoretical and the practical. Although one has studied and understood properly the theoretical aspect, it is not suitable to bring it into use when actually coming to practice; this would turn into bringing in memory (saññā) according to letters/words (byañjana) in order to think and reflect, to label,²⁰which is not a condition for understanding. Therefore, one must know how to differentiate this in order to make use of specifically the theory concerning the practice only, which can be utilized directly.

2. Even though such understanding concerns the aspect of practice, yet it has the side of the causesand the side of the resultsmixed together. The practitioners must have the understanding that enables them to distinguish [what are causes and what are results], with the purpose of leading a correct practice by bringing to use the part concerning causes only, and not also the part concerning results.

3. Regardless of having ample or little knowledge, the new practitioners ought to take an interest only in that which is specifically necessary to be used in the practice, andthis knowledge that should be brought into use, must be understood in a precise and very clear way, enough to enable us to notice the path of practice. Knowing too little will cause to have problems at the time of making use of such knowledge. And knowing a lot and too meticulously, will generate entanglements or confusion, and also demur and suspicion.

4. We must understand that such (theoretical) knowledge that we have obtained is according to concepts, words, language, written in the scriptures or to which we have listened to in lectures. Concepts are concepts, which, it is true, can show and give guidance about the path, but the intrinsic natures that are the practice objects and the contemplating factors are not also comprised in that moment [the moment we are conceptualizing, i.e., studying theoretically]—these [intrinsic natures] are just the dhammas that we must give rise to at the time of actually practicing. Using concepts directly is a matter of memory only, which generates no benefit. We must use the understanding that comes from theoretical studying separately—that is what is correct—when the intrinsic natures have been grasped already, the conventional concepts (sammuti-paññati)²¹will withdraw by themselves.

The order of arising of cintāmayapaññā (understanding through intellection)²²

1.Far cause: Sutamayapaññā ………… The knowledge and understanding that we have

acquired previously (through listening to others).

2.Near cause: Yoniso-manasikāra…… We pay attention, are aware of the present-moment

object that has arisen.

3. Supporting foundation from which we can prove: Sati … The present object has arisen by the

power of restraint.

4. Result: Cintāmayapaññā ……… More knowledge arises: “The present object that I am

paying attention to is this or that nāma or this or that

rūpa.”

The reason for not having a present-moment object

1. The practitioners are not able to differentiate thinkingfrom awareness. They only recall the kammaṭṭhāna(-object) in their minds. Such us:

• they understand that sitting-rūpa, etc is a dhammārammaṇa, a mind-object,²³ so they use the mind to recall it.

• they understand that sitting-rūpa, etc, is a nimitta (mental image), that it is necessary to close the eyes to have the image of the sitting-rūpa present itself at the mind.

• they recite words in their mind: “sitting-rūpa, sitting-rūpa.”

2. They make the awareness go out to the kammaṭṭhāna(-object) through [the use of] mental recitation (labelling) or also by thinking and recalling in the mind. This means they are able to tell the difference between thinking from awareness, but due to not being familiarized or habituated to awareness and observation yet, they mentally recite or think and recallalternately with awareness.

3. They are able to have awareness arise, but they still have problems in having such awareness because it comes occasionally, now and then. For instance,

• they have practiced calm (samatha) before: the mind has been habituated to grasp, to get adhered to the object, so awareness happens just at the beginning, then it goes away; later they’ll go back again to grasping and adhering to the old object [i.e., the contemplation object(s) which their former meditation technique(s) made them get habituated to].

• they sometimes have problems about the impediments (nīvaraṇa), they are not able to adjust their heart/mind appropriately (have yoniso-manasikāra) in relation to these conditions; unwholesome mental states (akusala-citta) will arise often making the present-moment object to be rejected.

• or wanting comes in to abide: they want to know everything, they want to know distinctly, they want the awareness to stay for a long time, in this way controlling and arranging arise, and rendering the mind weary, therefore not able to have awareness arise throughout.

The reason why the practitioners cannot have skilful attention arise

1. They [mis]understand that when they are already able to have the present-moment object arise with the awareness, [it means] they already understand correctly— thus they don’t continue to be energetic in the pursuit of skilful attention.

2. They want to get peace of mind from the practice— when they are already able to be with the present-moment, they become satisfied only with that, because they have already got what they wished for.

3. Because they only aim at arranging around the issue of the present-moment object according to their expectations [i.e., they hunger after present-moment], they neglect the truth of what they came here to do (they came to give up defilement, not to getpresent-moment).²⁴

We can se that the problems related to skilful attention are several. The most important ones arise from not understanding what we have listened to, this causes unskillful attention, unwise consideration, wrong adjustment of the heart/mind in relation to the objects,or the standing, walking, sitting and lying down postures and the different dukkhas. When we adjust our heart/mind incorrectly, the object (the posture) will not be pure, it will not be possible to cleanse craving out from that object.

You come to long for the posture or you come to know the posture?

When you begin to notice the object (the postures), don’t wish for the following things:

1.That you must know the posture’s mode completely (the whole posture).

2.That you must know distinctly or clear.

3.That you must keep knowing the present-moment object for a long time without letting it get loose, fall away or be forgotten, etc.

Because having this kind of intentions or determinations is conducive to make the heart/mind that is beginning to notice the kammaṭṭhāna(-object) have symptoms which are incompatible and unordinary according to nature; the heart/mind will try hard to aim at what it is contemplating, there’ll be an over-intentioned effort or an unnatural arranging activity.

When the contemplating mind has inclined itself toward the purpose of getting something, it will lack gentleness, delicateness, it will lack suitability and compatibleness adapting (mental properties and mind) to action,thus spoiling its own sharpness and capacity to be observant, and causing it to be incapable to see the unnatural or out-of-the-ordinary activity taking place at the moment of contemplating, merely to go on contemplating in order to get the results that it expects or wishes for.

The characteristics of mindfulness that take place at the mode

1. Ordinarily, when we haven’t come to practice, we are able to know the posture’s mode—it is just that we are not mindful and observant [of it]. Such is the natural/ordinary way of knowing the posture. Therefore, when coming to practice, don’t feel that you have to be serious and do something special (something out of the ordinary or unusual).

2. The posture is taking place in a tensed-up way, altered/modified, forced, etc., then let go of it. Allow yourself to go with what takes place in an ordinary or natural way. The heart/mind must let go to allow clarity. Don’t keep anything in the mind: don’t incline yourself into [thinking that] “it has to be this or that way.”

Craving… has something ahead of time — mindfulness… knows the immediate

3. When one is having restraint it means there’s no interest regarding outside objects, one pays attention (manasikāra) at the mode existing at that moment. The mode will present itself to the awareness by itself. The awareness of the mode will have the characteristic of faintness [barely perceptible], only on the surface, striking slightly, waving. The awareness will get scattered out [decentralised], sometimes more, sometimes less, [147] according to as much as the power of mindfulness is able to.

4. The awareness will have the characteristic of moving freely and shifting from here to there, owing to the absence of control, of subduing. As much as it is aware of and in whatever way it is aware of, we must concede. But one has to observe regularly, have sustained thoroughness (samniak),²⁵and have the mind know in an evenly and steady pace. Mindfulness will do its work by itself. When one gets the opportunity to train, that is, to have restraint at the mode frequently, mindfulness’ power will increase at a steady pace.

5. Sometimes the impediments besiege and crowd against the heart/mind, making the heart/mind devoid of gentleness, delicateness, and adaptability to action, causing not to have awareness of the mode or posture, or to be able to know specifically at the spot were there is unpleasant bodily feeling (dukkha-vedanā) or at the striking spot (i.e., tangible object, phoṭṭhabbārammaṇa) only. When things are happening in this way, do not force mindfulness to work too much, more than what it can normally be aware of. It is necessary to concede that as much as it can be aware of, that is as much as it can be aware of. [The activity of] forcing causes the mind to feel a burden, and makes it weary and fatigued until giving rise to unordinary bodily symptoms, or else sometimes making it grasp and get adhered to the object, making it indifferent and peaceful onwards.

6. When you feel that you have done something but did not get anything in return or that you cannot do it at all, do not endeavour to overdo it with the purpose of getting more awareness, but use a relaxed (or moderate) method by putting the kammaṭṭhāna to rest temporarily. When the heart/mind goes back to normality again, then you can start anew. Because the more you try, the more bad results or disadvantages will arise.

The cleansing of craving and wrong view:

dukkha exerts pressure on materiality

to know that the object is materiality (rūpa)

(clear comprehension)

to pay attention to the object

(skilful attention)

to have the awareness on the object

(mindfulness)

to pay attention to the immediate dukkha

(skilful attention)

to know that we have to change to relieve dukkha

(clear comprehension)

to change with restraint

(on the posture or on dukkha)

the object (the posture) is pure