"When establishing samadhi, didn't the Mogok Sayadaw teach about six inner guests and five outer guests? With six inner guests and five outer guests, isn't it worth analyzing?
During that time, the awareness of in-and-out breath is called the 'host.' The five outer guests are: consciousness of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching. The six inner guests are: greed, hatred, delusion, non-greed, non-hatred, and thinking mind. Isn't that what he taught?
Therefore, when neither inner guests nor outer guests come, there's just the host - knowing the in-breath and out-breath.
For example, when an outer guest comes - like hearing a car sound - isn't it worth noting? Consider: is it the car or the sound? When we hear 'sound,' don't we get nama (consciousness of hearing) and rupa (sound)? The 'car' is concept, while nama-rupa is ultimate reality.
When that outer guest (hearing) passes away, and no inner guest comes, there's just awareness of breathing in and out. Study this pattern.
Then, when inner guests like greed, hatred, and delusion come, study them. Wanting after seeing, wanting after hearing, wanting after smelling, wanting after tasting - isn't this worth studying? When this happens, observe: Is wanting 'self' or is it craving (tanha)?
Craving arises from sankhara khandha - isn't it nama? When there's wanting/craving, is there still a 'self'? Doesn't wrong view fall away? Craving is sakkaya (personality belief), isn't it? When we say 'I want,' doesn't this 'I' become wrong view? The 'I' is wrong view, craving is sakkaya - doesn't this become sakkaya-ditthi (personality belief)?
When wanting arises, is it 'self' or craving? Doesn't wrong view fall away? When desires are unfulfilled, doesn't anger arise? Is anger 'self' or just anger? Anger is sakkaya - isn't this worth analyzing? It's difficult when we don't recognize anger.
'Don't test my patience,' 'I'm angry,' 'What do you think I am?' - isn't this 'I' wrong view? Anger is sakkaya, doesn't this become sakkaya-ditthi? Is being upset 'self' or anger? Doesn't the concept of 'self' fall away? Isn't this worth studying?
Do these two arise from knowing or not knowing? Is it 'self' or delusion? It's delusion - no 'self' involved. Doesn't wrong view fall away? Consider this - these are the essential points.
When desire/craving arises, doesn't it pass away? When anger arises, doesn't it pass away? When delusion arises, doesn't it pass away? All conditioned things are impermanent."
"Well, do you see desire or its absence? Do you see anger or its absence? Do you see delusion or its absence? Isn't it taught that seeing the absence is anicca, and knowing this is magga? Does craving still come? Does attachment still come? Does kamma still come? Don't the three types of Dependent Origination cease? That's the essential point.
Now, when there are no external or internal visitors, you should start observing the in-and-out breath, knowing the outgoing and incoming breath, shouldn't you? That's how you should practice. When external visitors come, observe the mind that hears when hearing, observe with the nose when smelling - isn't this worth investigating?
When there are no external visitors, no internal visitors, shouldn't you practice observing the 'host' - knowing the out-breath and in-breath?
But now people don't do that. They just sit there stubbornly. When they hear something, they don't pay attention properly. They think 'Why does the car noise have to be so loud while I'm practicing?' Isn't this worth investigating? Study this. It's happening in their mind. The sound is just sound. Isn't this worth studying?
Is it a car or a sound? The consciousness that hears the sound is nama (mind), isn't it? The sound is rupa (matter), isn't it? Nama-rupa are ultimate realities, while 'car' is just a concept. When you look at a 'car', do you actually see a car or just visible form?
Try touching what you think is a 'car' and investigate. Do you find a car or just sensations? Think about it. Don't you assume a 'car' exists? Examine it with wisdom - do you find a car or just hardness? If hardness equals car, then everything hard would have to be called a car. Is that how a car exists? That hardness is just the earth element. Isn't this worth investigating?
And when there's hardness, it's not like a solid iron block or stone. You know it only at the moment of contact. It manifests as a characteristic that is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and non-self - not like an iron block seen with ordinary eyes. It appears as a nature, understand?
If it were like an iron block, could we call it impermanent? Study this too. We're talking about impermanence that's known at the moment of contact. Isn't this worth investigating? Think about it. This thinking is called practice. Isn't it taught as knowing, abandoning, realizing, developing - the four functions in a moment of path-consciousness? You need to understand the Noble Truths..."
Now, when there are no external or internal visitors, you should start observing the in-and-out breath, knowing the outgoing and incoming breath, shouldn't you? That's how you should practice. When external visitors come, observe the mind that hears when hearing, observe with the nose when smelling - isn't this worth investigating?
When there are no external visitors, no internal visitors, shouldn't you practice observing the 'host' - knowing the out-breath and in-breath?
But now people don't do that. They just sit there stubbornly. When they hear something, they don't pay attention properly. They think 'Why does the car noise have to be so loud while I'm practicing?' Isn't this worth investigating? Study this. It's happening in their mind. The sound is just sound. Isn't this worth studying?
Is it a car or a sound? The consciousness that hears the sound is nama (mind), isn't it? The sound is rupa (matter), isn't it? Nama-rupa are ultimate realities, while 'car' is just a concept. When you look at a 'car', do you actually see a car or just visible form?
Try touching what you think is a 'car' and investigate. Do you find a car or just sensations? Think about it. Don't you assume a 'car' exists? Examine it with wisdom - do you find a car or just hardness? If hardness equals car, then everything hard would have to be called a car. Is that how a car exists? That hardness is just the earth element. Isn't this worth investigating?
And when there's hardness, it's not like a solid iron block or stone. You know it only at the moment of contact. It manifests as a characteristic that is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and non-self - not like an iron block seen with ordinary eyes. It appears as a nature, understand?
If it were like an iron block, could we call it impermanent? Study this too. We're talking about impermanence that's known at the moment of contact. Isn't this worth investigating? Think about it. This thinking is called practice. Isn't it taught as knowing, abandoning, realizing, developing - the four functions in a moment of path-consciousness? You need to understand the Noble Truths..."
