here is a conversation in poland last year which might be usefulhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... age/131573
(Than Acharn sujin in Poland, 12th, pm-A, 14m30)
- 2 -
Ann: She asks: <In one discourse Ajahn Sujin said, <...>, how to cling less
<...> not to give in to the attachment, I don't understand.>
TA: Usually people don't want to understand at all, just want to (know) how, are
they Buddhist? because they don't want to understand.
Jon: Sometimes they want to understand, but they see understanding as a way of
reaching a certain... 'fringe benefit'.
TA: but how?
Jon: by self
TA: (does) the word 'how' indicate understanding, or theory, or what? just
wanting to get, that's all;
J: wanting to know a method;
TA: would you like to understand or to know how?
J: understanding's better.;
TA: otherwise we might not be able to answer the question she's just (asked),
that way - just to show how.
A: <How to study (Dhamma) in a moment of attachment? to food for example. And
you explained again that the answer is 'understanding',<...>, and some of the
conditions for understanding are hearing the true Dhamma and considering it,
discussing it >
TA: - until it's her own understanding
J: There isn't an answer, to the question 'How can I develop understanding when
there is craving for food?'
TA: Who can tell her how? That's why we talk about arammana (object) - food is
arammana, at moment of seeing it - craving for food, food is the arammana; not
understanding what arammana is, so how can there be no craving when there's no
A: There can't, but I guess ... when there is no understanding the next logical
TA: Don't you want to know what craving is? and no one can stop its arising;
just the self trying not to have it.
A: When people who are just beginning to study the Dhamma, to listen...
TA: That person should understand what Dhamma is; understanding one word at a
time is the best thing.
A: I'm thinking about this in the context of people who ask, <...>, when someone
asks and shows an interest in the Dhamma.
TA: But there are many people who show interest in Dhamma, like wanting to know
or to understand; wanting to know what Dhamma is or don't want to know what
Dhamma is, just want to know, whatever they like to know, like craving for food.
A: I don't think they know.
TA: Tell me how to be happy, see, who can tell? tell me that you don't have
attachment, who can do?
A: I think she would like to know how to develop understanding.
TA: Of now, or what? not of seeing; whatever appears, does she want to
understand (that)? Maybe she'd say "no, I want to understand how to be happy".
A: <... This is quite new to me, to develop understanding by intellectual
understanding, since Goenka always told me to do the contrary.>
TA: Not Buddha.
Lukas: <...> you always talk about the Dhamma, the Dhamma, but this is not yet
understood at all, and my point is that even if there is thinking like this, in
my case like even if it's not dhamma but just a story that thinks of 'this is
anatta, dukkha, anicca', and isn't it the way to develop more understanding?
TA: What thinks?
TA: Or, dhamma; no one thinks, anytime that thinking arises there can be the
understanding of that moment which thinks, that is not that which sees - all
comes to anattaness, realities; because sometimes one thinks "ok, seeing is no
me, but thinking is me, I (think)".
L: But it's a long way; it's like one moment of understanding and then many
moments of ignorance <...>
TA: Yes, so you understand what is meant by khanti (patience), viriya (effort),
sacca (truth), adhitthana (resolution, four of the ten perfections)...
L: Yes, little by little, by I'd like to understand more than khanti.
; can you understand everything, in a day, or two days, or two
years, or twenty years?
It seems like that's not so difficult to understand, but actually the more you
know the more you can see the subtlety of reality - it's beyond expectation,
nobody can think about the moment when it arises and falls away, just know that
whatever appears now arises and falls away, that's all and that's not enough,
because it's only thinking about that but not the direct experience of it; when
one knows that it is true, shouldn't one follows it until it can be moment of
penetration, penetrating the truth, with understanding
L: <...> I appreciate your teaching so much because it's so natural, <...>, just
read and listen and the mind finds its own way by different moments, even if
it's very slow; but some people have their particular way of developing, <...>
and observe what happens in daily life, what do you think about this?
TA: Who is doing this?
L: A self.
TA: Ok, so that is not the way to eradicate the idea of self.
L: But maybe by way of self ...
TA: No, never, the way of self is avijja, not understanding, ignorance;
otherwise there is no self, if there is no ignorance.
Where is ignorance now? Whenever there is no right understanding, whenever
akusala citta arises, there is a clinging to the idea of I or self, and vijja is
the opposite of ignorance.
Can anyone show a way to get rid of ignorance, a shortcut, a method? when it's
method it's ignorance.
J: If we choose...
TA: Actually, lobha chooses.
J: But if we choose, for example, visible object, is it in fact visible object?
or is it just an idea...
TA: And how can you understand visible object as not self? - uncontrollable, how
come to appear to this moment.
J: I suppose the idea is that by choosing to observe visible object, you see
TA: Ok, observe - in what way, to understand it? it's like this, just like this;
and what's the way to observe? open you eyes, or what?:-)
L: It's like trying so much.
TA: Is cetana (intention) one of the eightfold (factors of the) path?
L: No. But Ajahn, people usually want some particular way...
TA: People, not me; I can't do anything for those people at all -
arammanupanissaya paccaya, pakatupanissaya paccaya, why do we read about all
these (conditions) - just to forget about it, and have the idea of choosing; it
doesn't help at all if one reads and there is the idea of selecting, choosing:
to understand this, not that.
Sotapanna eradicates wrong view completely, from everything: thinking, liking,
attachment, aversion - whatever it is it's conditioned.