The right understanding which is developed in vipassana sees realities as they are: impermanent, dukkha and anatta. This insight has to be developed, it cannot arise without conditions.

We have accumulated such a great deal of ignorance and wrong view during countless lives. From the teachings we have learnt that seeing is not self, that hearing is not self, that all realities are not self. However, when seeing has arisen, do we know it as it is, or do we still have an idea of self which sees? Is it still 'my seeing'? Do we still have an idea of my hearing, my thinking, my feeling, my attachment, my kusala?

The Buddha spoke about all the phenomena which are experienced through the six doorways of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense and mind-door. He spoke of seeing and visible object, sound and hearing and of all the other phenomena.

We read in the 'Kindred Sayings'
(Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, First Fifty, Chapter III, par. 23):

Monks I will teach you the all. Do you listen to it. And what, monks, is the all? It is eye and object, ear and sound, nose and scent, tongue and savour, body and things tangible, mind and mind-states. That, monks, is called 'the all'.

Whose, monks, should say: 'Rejecting this all, I will proclaim another all, -it would be mere talk on his part, and when questioned he could not make good his boast, and further would come to an ill pass. Why so? Because, monks, it would be beyond his scope to do so.'

Besides the realities which can be experienced through the six doors, there are no other realities.

We read in Par. 25 of the same section:

I will teach you a teaching, monks, for the abandoning of the all by fully knowing, by comprehending it. Do you listen to it. And what, monks, is that teaching?

The eye, monks, must be abandoned by fully knowing, by comprehending it. Objects... eye-consciousness... eye-contact... that pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or neutral feeling... that also must be abandoned by fully knowing, by comprehending it.

The mind... mind-states... that pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or neutral feeling... that also must be abandoned by fully knowing it, by comprehending it.

All these phenomena are elements which arise and fall away, they are not beings or things which stay.

Seeing is not a person, not self, it is a moment of consciousness, a citta, which arises, performs the function of seeing and then falls away immediately. We are not master of seeing, seeing does not belong to us. Seeing can arise only when there are the right conditions for seeing. When there is no eye-sense, seeing cannot arise. Eye-sense is a condition for seeing. Are we master of our eye-sense? Did we create our eye-sense? Visible object is another condition for seeing. When there is no visible object there cannot be any seeing. All the phenomena in ourselves and around ourselves can arise only when there are the appropriate conditions for their arising. Without there being the right conditions they cannot arise, even if we wish them to arise. We cannot control phenomena. Do we think that we are master of our mind and of our body? Can we prevent them from changing all the time? What we take for mind are only mental phenomena which arise because of conditions and fall away immediately. What we take for body are only different bodily phenomena which arise because of conditions and fall away again.

What we call 'life' or 'the world' are only mental phenomena, phenomena which can experience objects (nama) and physical phenomena, phenomena which cannot experience any object (rupa). Seeing is a mental phenomenon, it experiences visible object. Feeling is a mental phenomenon, which feels. Visible object is a physical phenomenon, it cannot experience any object.

Someone asked whether one cannot call nama subject and rupa object. Nama can also be an object which is experienced. Nama can experience both rupa and nama. For instance, attachment or feeling are namas which can be experienced by anther nama. Thus, the terms subject and object are not helpful for the understanding of nama and rupa.

It may seem complicated to classify all the phenomena in ourselves and around ourselves as mental phenomena, nama, and physical phenomena, rupa. But is this actually not more simple than all the different names and values we attach in conventional language to these phenomena? We may try to fit our own philosophy or the scientific terms we have learnt into Buddhism. Don't we try to make Buddhism into something which matches our view of life and 'our world'? Why don't we forget for a moment all we have learnt, and all these thoughts, and study by direct experience any reality which appears now? Only in that way can we prove what is real.

All phenomena are either nama or rupa. Theoretical understanding of nama and rupa is not enough, it does not bring detachment from the concept of 'self'. We have to know nama and rupa as they are through direct experience. What does that mean? We have to know them when they appear, one at a time, right now. That is the only way to see them as they are, not self.

What should be known in vipassana through direct experience? Can a chair be known through direct experience? Can a person be known through direct experience? Can hardness be known through direct experience? These are important questions which we discussed.

Hardness can be directly experienced through the bodysense when it appears. Is there no hardness now, impinging on the bodysense? We do not have to think of hardness or name it in order to experience it. Hardness is real, it is a physical phenomenon, a rupa, which can be directly experienced.

Can a chair be experienced through the bodysense? We think that we can touch a chair, but what is actually experienced? Hardness or softness can be directly experienced. Chair cannot be directly experienced, it is only an idea we form up in our minds. 'Thinking' can think of many different objects, it can think of realities and also of concepts which are not real. When we think that we see a person, it is not seeing, but it is thinking of a concept. Only visible object can be experienced through the eye-sense.

When we touch what we take for a person, what appears? Hardness, softness, heat or coldness can be directly experienced through the bodysense, not a person. The Buddha taught that there is no person, no self. But we have accumulated so much ignorance and wrong view that it seems that we see and touch people.

We may find it difficult to understand that there are in the absolute sense no people. There are no people, but this does not mean that there are no realities. What we take for people are different mental phenomena and physical phenomena which arise and fall away. There are realities such seeing, thinking or generosity, but there are no people; they do not stay.

When we think that a person is generous, it is in reality a moment of consciousness which is generous. It arises because of conditions and then falls away. 'Why do we always want to insert a person in the giving when there is giving', Khun Sujin said.

Through vipassana one can know what is real and what is not real. Concepts are not objects of mindfulness in vipassana since they are not real. The namas and rupas which appear one at a time are the objects one has to develop right understanding of.

What is mindfulness in vipassana? This was another topic of our discussions. Is being mindful of an object the same as being conscious of an object? For example, when one is conscious of hardness does that mean that one is mindful of hardness?

Mindfulness, in Pali sati, arises with every sobhana citta (beautiful consciousness). Sati is wholesome. There are many levels of sati. There is sati with dana. The kusala citta which performs dana could not arise without sati. There is sati with sila. When kusala citta which observes sila arises, sati remembers to abstain from unwholesome deeds. The kusala citta which develops samatha is accompanied by sati which 'remembers' the object of samatha meditation subject.

The kusala citta which develops vipassana is accompanied by sati. Sati in vipassana is different from sati in samatha. Sati in vipassana is mindful of any nama or rupa which appears right now through one of the six doors. The object of mindfulness in vipassana can be visible object, seeing, sound, hearing, thinking, or any other reality which appears at the present moment. In order that the function of sati in vipassana will become clearer, we should first have more understanding of the object of sati.

The characteristic of hearing can appear to sati. Can there not be mindfulness of hearing right now? Hearing-consciousness itself can never be accompanied by mindfulness. Hearing has the function of hearing; it merely experiences sound and then falls away. Mindfulness accompanies the kusala citta which arises afterwards and its function is not hearing but mindfulness. We do not have to count how many moments of citta have arisen and fallen away after the hearing
before sati arises which is mindful of hearing.

Mindfulness accompanies kusala citta, but even akusala citta can be the object of mindfulness. For example, citta with dislike can be the object of mindfulness. The dislike has fallen away when the citta with mindfulness arises, but can the characteristic of dislike not appear to the sati? Dislike is different from like or from seeing. Different characteristics can be known through mindfulness.

Being mindful of a reality is not the same as being conscious of an object. When for example hardness impinges on the bodysense, a citta arises which merely experiences hardness, it has the function of experiencing hardness. This type of citta does not like or dislike the object, neither can it have right understanding of it. It merely experiences hardness through the bodysense and then falls away. Shortly after this citta has fallen away akusala cittas or kusala cittas arise. If there are conditions for kusala citta with mindfulness, the citta is not forgetful of the object and then there can be 'study' of the characteristic of that object, so that right understanding can develop. There cannot be right understanding at once; it has to be develop through mindfulness. We used to study only through reading, listening or thinking. Study with mindfulness is different: it is study through the direct experience of the different na ømas and rupas as they appear one at a time. Khun Sujin often said: 'Without study panna (wisdom) cannot grow'.

Only one reality at a time can be the object of sati. Can we experience more than one object at a time? It seems that we can see and hear at the same time. But each citta which arises can experience only one object and then it falls away, to be succeeded by the next citta. Seeing experiences visible object through the eye-door and then falls away. Hearing is completely different from seeing, it experiences sound through the ear-door and then falls away. There can be only one citta at a time, one moment of experiencing an object. Since cittas arise and fall away very rapidly it seems that seeing and hearing last for a while and that they can occur at the same time, but that is not so.

Is there no seeing and hearing now? But there often is forgetfulness, no 'study' of any reality. Hardness impinges on the bodysense time and again, but there is no study of hardness as only hardness. When we touch something which is hard we have no doubt that it is hard, even a child can know this. But is there study of the characteristic of hardness as only hardness, not mixed up with a concept of a finger or a chair which is hard? When we think that we experience a 'whole' such as a finger or a chair, it shows that there is no mindfulness of any reality. We may experience hardness many times with attachment, with aversion and with ignorance. Sometimes sati may arise and then there can be study of the characteristic of hardness so that right understanding can develop. From the foregoing examples we can see that mindfulness or awareness in vipassana is not the same as what we mean in conventional language by 'awareness' of something or being conscious of something.