28 July '82.
Jakarta.
Dear Susie,
You just handed me some helpful points in your letter which I want to quote.
You point out that we forget that it is kilesa, defilements, which drive us on in daily life. When we like akusala we do not seem to see it:
...I don't think that we just have to talk about the problems of the day or the situation, but what about all those times when life is running so smoothly. That is when it is harder for Blanche and for me (and for me, Nina!!) to see that even when life is comfortable (probably just more lobha) that is the moment when understanding is needed also. Tomorrow may fall apart, but today has been full of pleasantries, good laughs and good food, but I did not see any need to be aware during any of it....
Susie then proceeds saying that someone who sits in a quiet place can be just as infatuated by his thoughts as someone who is joining with his friends. In other words it is essential to know citta now, whatever one feels like doing, otherwise one takes for noble calm what is just selfishness, 'my calm'; attachment to an idea one takes for calm. A good point to remember is that also when life is smooth we need to develop understanding. When I am in a difficult situation, on the verge of tears, I may grab the teachings in order to find a consoling word to help me keep going. One ponders about it, it is helpful, but also when there is no trouble the Buddha liked to remind us: life is short, even now we are in trouble, going towards death without fail, there is decay in our body right now, our head is on fire and in such situation we do not delay to find a remedy. The remedy is knowing the truth of something which is right at hand: six doors. Thus, we really need the teachings, just as we need food every day. It should become a habit to take this food, a habit one should really cultivate. My food at lunch was so good (tempe with vegetables), while I was reading your letter and laughing at your touches of humour (you are always to me a person full of fun), and how easily we forget to know such moments for what they are: conditioned and passing, not self. You then quote Khun Sujin who says that, when we have a problem, it is important to understand, not so much the story of the problem, the details, the situation, the people involved, but really the defilements which are the real cause of problems. You stress how we also cling to 'my dosa':
...life is basically running well for Tadao and I, until the next difficulty arises. And then I may once again be as swept away by 'my problem'... And somehow we even cling to the story of my problems and the negative aspects of life. I think we like to elaborate on the dosa side of life. I think we are very attached at times to our difficult or sad story and like to draw people's concern to us by elaborating only on these aspects of our day. I lived in the 'oh poor me' world for a long time and it is a difficult habit to break. We fail to see that the whole point of Dhamma is absolutely positive.
End quote. You then ask me about my remark, that one can understand more about metta if one sees that it all comes back to the citta now. Well, if we have no understanding of citta now, whether it is kusala or akusala, don't we misled ourselves most of the time, taking for metta what is in fact attachment? Like you just wrote, you prepare a meal for the one you love, mostly with attachment. We may think and write about metta, but what about it now? We usually forget about the present moment, but if there is less forgetfulness and thus also less absorption in all the objects which seem to assail us, there is more opportunity for metta. You remark about something you heard: how can we ever give up the idea of self if we can't give away things, and you ask whether this can be applied to metta. Yes, because metta is unselfishness; when there is metta, you actually give something to someone else: kindness, kind thoughts, kind words, or kind acts. Metta is one of the perfections the Bhodhisatta had to develop together with satipatthana in order to attain Buddhahood. Metta can soak loose selfishness. The development of right understanding of nama and rupas conditions more metta in life.
Metta goes out to all beings, it does not choose: this person, but not that person. You ask whether there are moments of thinking with metta. There are all the time moments of thinking about situations, persons, thus the thinking can also be done with metta instead of with akusala. Now you give another good reminder:
...I have some desire to be selective with whom there should be more metta.
Yes, I know, just be aware of whatever appears. Tricky, because we are so caught up in desire and only looking for future moments; future understanding and future awareness... Really, the learning can only be done from one point in place and time, here and now. I find that, once again, I am truly at the beginning....
Khun Sujin would say, so, begin again and again. Our life consists of beginning. You then write about the 'humbling effect of understanding':
Yes, the Dhamma is so practical and full of common sense. It can be seen everywhere in the teachings. Possibly we are not as concerned with the practical as we may wish to think and may look for something of the fantastic, something a little out of the ordinary, rather than this very ordinary moment of unawareness...
You then continue, saying that there can be wrong practice in a residual form, when we want to be successful, as I mentioned in reference to calm. Is there, not only as regards calm, but also in the development of understanding of nama and rupa, an idea of wanting to have success for ourselves? Alan Driver, when still a monk, used to say: 'what do you want awareness for, to show it to others?' This clinging to success makes us impatient. When there is impatience we can check: this comes from clinging, clinging to success. That is why we find ourselves too good to begin and begin again. You continue:
...This is where I think understanding has a truly humbling effect, because
with the growth of understanding, and, can it be said, the 'lessening' of the
self, one would become less concerned with the success of self.
I think if one is busy time and again to know the present, there will be less and less thinking anyway, and less thinking about success in the future. Understanding has a humbling effect, because one really gets to know better the moments of defilements. At first one may think: O, I do not really cling to a self, I understand all the Buddha taught. And then one may find out that there is such an amount of clinging one did not realize before one had. If one thinks that one has not much to learn the situation gets really dangerous.
I was quoting to Blanche the practical advice Khun Sujin gave us, and she replied that she finds it just common sense anybody could think of, and she asks: where is the Buddhist flavour? In order words, she misses the typical Buddhist approach in such advice about the situations of daily life. This is an interesting point, and I try to go into it a little more. It is actually again:
understanding of citta now, what I just wrote. Is that not the Buddha's teaching? To be more precise: understanding citta as only a conditioned reality, not self. This is the essence of the teachings. This understanding can eventually eradicate defilements. But this understanding can only begin at the present moment. Whether one likes to hear it or not.
Perhaps too ordinary? Not fantastic, something out of the ordinary, as you just said? If there is no understanding that each moment is conditioned, that is has arisen already, that all that can be done is trying to understand it, to understand nama as nama and rupa as rupa, we may be choosy about what should be the object of awareness: this reality, not that one, not akusala, that is not a good object of awareness. So one chooses only calm, one does not want to know one's akusala, one misleads oneself, one lives in an artificial world one creates oneself. While on the other hand, it is so helpful for one's daily life, one's dealing with others included, to just begin to know the seeing as only a nama which sees, visible object as only a rupa, a reality which does not know anything, no person. To know that whatever is experienced is conditioned, whether we like it or not. It helps us to accept suffering, old age, troubles. All that matters is the development of understanding which can lead us on in the right way, to walk the right way in life. In this way one makes the best of one's life. One may see two people helping someone else, but the cittas are so different. One may expect something in return, or have selfish motives, be full of the idea of self. Another person may outwardly do the same good deeds, but his citta is different: he is mindful and realizes that that moment of helping is conditioned, only a nama, not self. Thus, his whole attitude is different, but someone else may not see any difference. The life of someone who develops satipatthana is very ordinary, just daily life, but, and this is the difference, there is right understanding, or rather a developing understanding. In this way one applies the teachings. This is very ordinary, common sense advice, it may seem. But if one knows the purpose of the teachings, such advice is really different. The development of right understanding of the present reality is not always mentioned, but it is implied. We should remember this when we read the Buddha's advice to laypeople; it seems almost too ordinary, but we should understand the goal of his teachings: purification through the development of right understanding now, always now, whether one likes to hear it or not.
One will be really urged to develop right understanding if one realizes that one is full of self, but if one does not know this, there will not be any urge. To be full of self: this does not even mean that one thinks of a self, it is the deep-rooted clinging to self which is latent and motivates many other kinds of defilements. Even if one does not think 'It is me, it is self' one can still be full of self. Don't we take the body as a whole, a body, instead of different ever changing phenomena? Don't we take the mind as a mind, a mind which sees and also understands the meaning of the concepts of trees and people after the seeing, instead of realizing the mind as ever changing phenomena, then seeing, then thinking, and they are all totally different. Seeing has nothing to do with thinking, although they may arise closely one after the other. I do not say that there is wrong view arising all the time, but is there not a deep-rooted wrong interpretation of reality? We cannot claim that we see realities as they are, that we know the difference between seeing and visible object, seeing and thinking of concepts. There is still such a lot to learn, and thus, why put it off? One loses precious time if one thinks one has to be calm first. One can wait for ever.
This letter is at the same time my answer to Blanche's last letter. Since I am almost going on leave I sent the letter to Sarah. I do not understand anything about the quotations from the meditation teachers, and thus I cannot discuss it. To me it is such a tangle: the citta which does not quiver, what is the meaning? Naturally everyone has to decide for himself what way he wants to go in life. But before one does that it is useful to have a foundation knowledge of all the realities, including calm, so that one knows exactly with what types of cittas calm arises. One has to know about the different processes of cittas, about the different cetasikas accompanying cittas. So hopefully the reprint of the Abhidhamma book will be sent soon from Sri Lanka to Blanche. At the end of her letter I see some real concern to know the truth. Blanche felt that not too much time is left. It makes me think of the 'Sister' (in the Therigatha 57, Vijaya), who had been going around in circles, never finding what she needed. And then she heard about the elements, the namas and rupas and found that the clear, exact foundation knowledge is needed first. In the meantime it makes no sense to have discussions about calm.
We read in the Therigatha, that Vijaya, after she had attained arahatship, said:
Four times, nay five, I sallied from my cell,
And roamed afield to find the peace of mind
I lacked, and governance of thoughts
I could not bring into captivity.
Then to a bhikkhuni (nun) I came and asked
Full many a question of my doubts.
To me she taught Dhamma: the elements,
Organ and object in the life of sense,
And then the factors of the Nobler life:
The ariyan Truths, the Faculties, the Powers,
The Seven Factors of Enlightenment,
The Eightfold Way, leading to utmost good.
I heard her words, her bidding I obeyed.
While passed the first watch of the night there rose
Long memories of the bygone line of lives.
While passed the second watch, the Heavenly Eye,
Purview celestial, I clarified.
While passed the last watch of the night, I burst
And rent aside the gloom of ignorance.
Then, letting joy and blissful ease of mind,
Suffuse my body, seven days I sat,
Ere stretching out cramped limbs I rose again.
Was it not rent indeed, that muffling mist?
With metta,
Nina van Gorkom