Conventional and ultimate truth

"The eyes given by our parents see people and beings - this cannot be eliminated. #Only_the_eye_of_wisdom_can_eliminate_this. When looking with our parents' eyes, we see persons and beings. During the Buddha's time, weren't there terms like 'Brother Ānanda,' 'Son Rāhula,' 'dear sons and daughters'? These are #conventional_designations_and_names. Did the Buddha reject these conventional terms? #No_he_didn't. Similarly, when we have a family and children, don't we give them names? Are these names present from birth or given by parents? Try touching a name. #The_visible_form_is_just_color. Let's say there are four sons: Ba U, Ba Aung, Ba Maung, and Ba Htwe. We give them conventional names. When they grow up, don't we take 'Ba U' as really existing? #We_take_it_as_real. When we examine 'Ba U' with Buddha-given wisdom-hands, from head to toe, #do_we_find_Ba_U_or_hardness_and_softness? Hardness is pathavī (earth element), softness is pathavī. Is it self that knows hardness and softness, or body-consciousness? Don't we find mental phenomena? Aren't hardness and softness material phenomena? These are mind and matter. We think 'Ba U' but find (mind and matter, Venerable Sir). #Only_mind_and_matter_are_found. If we can't find Ba U, can we find Ba Aung? Ba Maung? Ba Htwe? What's found is (mind and matter, Venerable Sir). #Shouldn't_we_take_what's_found_as_truth? When truth is known, doesn't delusion disappear? #When_truth_is_known_wrong_view_falls_away. However, do we reject the conventional usage? What exactly is rejected? When we examine what we think is 'Ba U', do we find 'Ba U' or just hardness and softness? #Mind_and_matter_only. Is it 'Ba U' or mind and matter? Why can't we find 'Ba U'? What's found - 'Ba U' or mind and matter? Is mind and matter found because 'Ba U' exists or doesn't exist? That's what we mean by rejection. #Because_it_doesn't_exist. What's found is mind and matter. On these two phenomena of mind and matter, don't we conventionally call them Ba U, Ba Aung, Ba Maung, Ba Htwe? Do we reject these conventional designations? Isn't this worth studying? This is 'Ba U' conventionally. There are conventional designations like 'Brother Ānanda.' Without such conventions, how could people communicate? This is #knowing_conventional_truth. #In_ultimate_truth_seen_by_wisdom_only_mind_and_matter_are_found. When mind and matter are found, is it because 'Ba U' exists or doesn't exist? If there's no attachment to 'Ba U', can we find humans? Devas? Brahmas? The 31 planes of existence? What's found is mind and matter. See, only mind and matter are found. Nothing we imagine is found. Why? When someone truly understands non-existence, listening to Dhamma, doesn't the Mogok Sayadaw teach in recordings that wisdom revolves around the aggregates?" "When someone curses you, hear it? When cursed, #when_you_hear_it_as_conventional_designation_you_understand. Doesn't Buddha teach this as mind and matter? Doesn't he teach to turn towards the aggregates? Listen to the Dhamma - doesn't he teach that wisdom revolves around the aggregates? When hearing Dhamma, #is_it_person_or_sound? Sound is correct. This is Dhamma. If it's a person, can it be Dhamma? Isn't sound correct? Isn't ear-consciousness that knows sound mental phenomena? Isn't sound material phenomena? These are mind and matter. When expanded, they're Five Aggregates. Doesn't he teach that wisdom revolves around aggregates? Isn't it worth examining what we find when revolving around aggregates? Doesn't sound-form cease after hearing? Doesn't hearing-consciousness cease after knowing? #Finding_mind_and_matter_is_impermanence. Is impermanence happiness or suffering? Is suffering pleasant or unpleasant? #Don't_we_need_to_truly_understand_suffering? When truly understanding suffering, do we still want this kind of aggregate? This true understanding is vijjā (knowledge). Taking it as beings is avijjā (ignorance). Taking human happiness, deva happiness, brahma happiness as real is wrong attention. When understanding suffering, don't misconceptions about happiness disappear? Does craving still come? Clinging? Kamma? Don't the three types of Dependent Origination cease? Craving-dependent origination, clinging-dependent origination, kamma-dependent origination - all three cease. Doesn't the cycle of aggregates end? #This_is_cessation_truth. Strive to reach this state. When hearing, aggregates arise and cease What truth is this? (Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir) Understanding is (Truth of Path, Venerable Sir) Craving is (Truth of Origin, Venerable Sir) No more aggregates arising is (Truth of Cessation, Venerable Sir) How many sections in Dependent Origination? (Four sections, Venerable Sir) How many factors in each section? (Five factors, Venerable Sir) Five times four (Twenty) These eight should be (easily memorized as the way to liberation from saṃsāra) Sadhu! Together let us keep the Dharma wheel rolling.