Any reality which appears now can be the object of mindfulness in vipassana. Isn't there seeing now? That can be object of mindfulness. Isn't there hearing now? That can be object of mindfulness.

We had discussions about seeing, visible object and thinking of what is seen, because we all are inclined to confuse different realities. In vipassana a very precise knowledge of the different realities has to be developed.

Seeing is a mental phenomenon, it experiences visible object. Visible object is that which is seen, it is experienced through the eye-sense. We can call it visible object or colour; it is that which appears through the eyes. Visible object is not a chair, a thing, an animal or a person. How could these impinge on the eyesense? There is visible object now, when our eyes are open. When we close our eyes and think of something or someone, it is not the experience of visible object. We forget to be mindful of visible object when it appears. Do we know visible object already, or do we still believe that we see a chair or a person?

We may believe that we experience shape and form through the eyesense, but this is not so. Because of remembrance of past experiences we form up concepts such as 'person' or 'chair'. Different types of citta succeed one another very rapidly. It may seem that there is a long moment of seeing, but seeing falls away immediately.

When we recognize different colours such as red and blue, it is again remembrance of concepts. Seeing is the experience only of what appears through the eye-sense. This does not mean that visible object is without any colour. When visible object is the object of mindfulness, it does not change into something else. It is visible object which appears. 'It appears now', Khun Sujin reminded us time and again.

It may seem very hard to know the difference between seeing and thinking. We may be inclined to think of seeing and wonder what seeing would be like. If one keeps on wondering and thinking about seeing, instead of being mindful of seeing right now, seeing can never be known as i t is. Panna (wisdom) which develops through mindfulness, will know seeing as the experience of visible object, different from the perceiving of shape and form.

Several people found the discussions about seeing and visible object, hearing and sound too academical. Why do we have to know these realities?

Are seeing and hearing not part of our life? We see and hear pleasant and unpleasant objects and soon after the seeing or hearing has fallen away, attachment, aversion and ignorance are bound to arise. We are very ignorant of seeing, hearing and all the other phenomena of our life. If there is no mindfulness of seeing and hearing we will always cling to the concept of 'I see', 'I hear'. That is wrong view, it is the wrong view of self. Should we not find out more about seeing and hearing? Seeing and visible object, hearing and sound and all the other realities which appear should be known as they are: not self. If there is no mindfulness we will continue to live with wrong view and that will cause us many problems. We will continue to cling to the concepts of 'I' and this or that 'person'.

When we hear harsh words, the characteristic of sound appears. We do not hear words. We remember the meaning of words and that is not hearing. We think of the words with displeasure and thus the problem is within us, not with the sound or the other person. There is no self which experiences the sound, hearing experiences it. Can there be mindfulness sometimes? At such moments different characteristics can be studied. We read in the 'Lesser Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant's Footprint' (Middle Length Saying, no. 27) about a monk who is mindful:

...Having seen visible object with the eye, he is not entranced by the general appearance, he is not entranced by the detail. If he dwells with this organ of sight uncontrolled, covetousness and dejection, evil unskilled states of mind might predominate. So he fares along controlling it; he guards the organ of sight, he comes to control over the organ of sight. Having heard a sound with the ear... Having smelt a smell with the nose... Having savoured a taste with the tongue... Having felt a touch with the body... Having recognised a mental object with the mind, he is not entranced by the general appearance, he is not entranced by the detail. If he lives with this organ of mind uncontrolled, covetousness and dejection, evil unskilled states of mind might predominate. So he fares along controlling it; he guards the organ of mind, he comes to control over the organ of mind. If he possessed this ariyan control of the (sense-) organs, he subjectively experiences unsullied well-being.

When we hear the word 'control' we may think of a self who controls.
However, sati, not self 'guards' the six doors.

Should one prepare for vipassana? Should one sit in a quiet place in order to become calm first, before one can study the namas and rupas which appear?

We have seen that there is calm in samatha and that right understanding of the object of samatha is the condition for calm.

In vipassana there is also calm and it is conditioned by right understanding. The right understanding in vipassana is different from the right understanding in samatha. In vipassana one learns to see namas and rupas as they are: not self. When there is right understanding of a reality which appears there is calm at that moment and there is no need to aim for calm.

In samatha tranquillity is predominant and in vipassana right understanding. Try to become calm as a preparation for vipassana is not the right condition for the arising of sati. Intellectual understanding of nama and rupa and of the development of vipassana is the right condition.

Intellectual understanding of nama and rupa is different from the direct experience of their characteristics and one should know this difference. It is important to know when there is sati and when there is no sati. If we have more right understanding of sati it can be developed.

There are many realities which appear, such as seeing, hearing, attachment, hardness or heat, but most often there is forgetfulness, no study of realities. But sometimes sati may arise, just for a moment and be aware of one reality at a time. We may try to explain in many ways what sati is, but it can only be known from experience, when it has actually arisen already.

Sati is not self, we cannot be master of sati. Sati cannot arise whenever we want it to and as long as we want it to. However much we want to have sati, it may or may not arise. It can arise only when there are the right conditions for its arising. As we have seen, intellectual understanding of namas and rupas and of the development of vipassana conditions the arising of sati. We should know that also intellectual understanding is not self, it arises because of conditions. It can arise only when we have listened to the Dhamma already and remember what we have heard. When we have considered the Dhamma and pondered over it for a long time and when there is steadfast remembrance of what we have heard, sati 'remember' to be mindful of a nama or rupa which appears now.

We read in the 'Gradual Sayings' (Book of the Tens, Ch. VIII, par. 3) about ten things which are helpful to obtain ten desirable aims:

Energy and exertion are helps to getting wealth. Finery and adornment are  helps to beauty. Seasonable action is a help to health. A lovely friendship is a help to virtues. Restraint of the sense-faculties is a help to the Brahma-life. Not quarreling is a help to friendship . Repetition is a help to much knowledge. Lending an ear and asking questions are helps to wisdom. Study and examination are helps to teachings. Right faring is a help to the heaven worlds.

These are the ten helps to these ten things which are desirable, dear, charming, hard to win in the world.

We see that listening and asking questions are important for the development of wisdom. In the same sutta it is said: 'Not to lend an ear and ask questions is an obstacle to wisdom'.

Phra Dhammadharo remarked that we should not have the idea that there is a self who is going to practice and will attain enlightenment quickly. Do we not sometimes imagine that we can induce sati and panna?

Even if sati arises we cannot keep it, it arises and falls away. Who knows the next moment? Realities arise because of conditions and then fall away. We never know what will happen the next moment. How could we then plan to have sati?

It is unpredictable when sati will arise and of what it will be aware. When we recognize someone there must have been many different cittas which arise and fall away. Seeing which experiences only visible object is one reality, it is different from recognizing someone. When we recognize someone we think of concept. There must have been seeing first before one recognizes someone and thus one may wonder whether sati should not be aware of seeing first and then of thinking. There is no rule, no special order. There may not be mindfulness of seeing, but when one has recognized someone sati may arise and be mindful of recognizing. Then seeing arises again and sati may be mindful of seeing, or of visible object.

When there is seeing there is at that moment also visible object. There are several realities at the same time, but only one object at a time can be experienced. Sati can mindful of only one object at a time. One may wonder how one can separate seeing from visible object.

There is no self which can separate seeing from visible object. Right understanding can know the different characteristics of these realities. Sati may be aware sometimes of seeing, sometimes of visible object; there can be study of one characteristic at a time. If one thinks that one can experience seeing and visible object together, it shows that there is no mindfulness. When one joins realities into a 'whole' one is thinking of a concept.

Only after a more precise knowledge of physical phenomena and mental phenomena has been developed, panna can experience their arising and falling away. One may wonder why the arising and falling away cannot be experienced before visible object can be distinguished from seeing, or sound from hearing. There is the appearing and disappearing of many different realities in a day. There is seeing and then there is hearing, and then there are other realities. Is that not the experience of impermanence?

It is only thinking about impermanence, not the direct experience of the arising and falling away of namas and rupas.

If one still takes seeing and visible object as a 'whole' 'what arises and falls away?' Khun Sujin asked. What arises and falls away exactly? Is it seeing or visible object? Only one object can be experienced at a time.

The first stage of insight is knowing the difference between nama and rupa through direct experience. The arising and falling away of nama and rupa can be known at a later stage. There has to be the study of their different characteristics first. 'If you do not study seeing and visible object now, don't think that you can become a sotapanna', Khun Sujin said.