"Let's study again about wrong perception and right perception. Wrong perception is 'saññā-vipallāsa' (perversion of perception). Right perception comes when mindfulness and wisdom are present. Isn't this worth examining? Note the difference between wrong and right perception.
If someone calls you 'son of a dog,' those who haven't studied or don't understand the Dhamma - don't they get angry? They do get angry. That's why it's taught that perception covers up what is actually heard. Isn't it taught that doubt is cleared only when perception is understood?
What you hear is just sound. Perception interprets it as an insult. When perceived as an insult, doesn't anger arise? Indeed it does. Isn't this worth investigating? When you hear that sound, think: can you see the sound with your eyes? Can you touch it with your hands? Can you smell it? Can you taste it with your tongue? But can't you know it with your ears? Each sense door has its appropriate object. Isn't this worth studying?
Getting angry when hearing what's perceived as an insult - that's wrong attention (ayoniso-manasikāra). In common Burmese, we call it 'wrong mental noting.' If you note it just as sound, isn't that right attention (yoniso-manasikāra)?
Is there anything in the sound itself that should cause anger? No! It's your mind that creates it. Wrong perception, wrong attention - doesn't wrong perception lead to wrong understanding? Wrong understanding to wrong view? This is perversion (vipallāsa).
This becomes view-perversion (ditthi-vipallāsa). Can one escape the 31 planes of existence with such perversion? Think about this. This is what we call Dhamma practice. Is there anything else to find besides this? No.
That's why it's taught to be mindful when seeing, mindful when hearing. Put mindfulness first.
When seeing, is it a person or just visible form? Is seeing a person the same as seeing visible form? Don't people say seeing someone means having past karmic connections? Don't they say they strongly dislike seeing someone? Does this happen in the aggregate of form (rūpakkhandha) or in the concept of beings?
Look how people end up in courts and police stations - this happens because of taking things in terms of beings and persons. Would this happen if we turned to see just the aggregates? No. Isn't this worth examining?"
"So, isn't it worth examining the Dhamma we encounter? About visible form - didn't the Buddha compare it to a bubble in the water, like those bubbles in streams and rivers?
When someone sees a bubble, do feelings of love arise? Do feelings of hate come? Isn't it free from love and hate? Is there any essence there? Think about it - would greed, hatred, and delusion arise towards it?
He gave the example of a bubble, but now we see things as persons and beings. When we don't like what we see, anger arises. When we like what we see, greed arises. Don't these two occur? Is this happening because of knowing or not knowing? Not knowing is delusion.
Isn't it taught that dying with greed leads to the realm of hungry ghosts? With hatred to hell realms? With delusion to animal realms? Isn't this worth studying? If we see things as bubbles, wouldn't we be free from love and hate? Think about it - is there any essence there?
That's why it's taught 'ruppati rupam' - form is subject to breaking up. Aching, pain, burning, cold, itching, numbness - these are all transformations.
Is it itching or transformation? Is it pain or transformation? Is it aching or transformation? Is it dizziness or transformation? Beyond the nature of transformation and the nature of knowing, is there anything else to find?
Though this is taught, people don't believe it. Now they've reached the point of seeing with ordinary eyes. The concept of person doesn't disappear. When the concept of person remains, greed, hatred, and delusion arise, don't they? Yes, they do..."
When someone sees a bubble, do feelings of love arise? Do feelings of hate come? Isn't it free from love and hate? Is there any essence there? Think about it - would greed, hatred, and delusion arise towards it?
He gave the example of a bubble, but now we see things as persons and beings. When we don't like what we see, anger arises. When we like what we see, greed arises. Don't these two occur? Is this happening because of knowing or not knowing? Not knowing is delusion.
Isn't it taught that dying with greed leads to the realm of hungry ghosts? With hatred to hell realms? With delusion to animal realms? Isn't this worth studying? If we see things as bubbles, wouldn't we be free from love and hate? Think about it - is there any essence there?
That's why it's taught 'ruppati rupam' - form is subject to breaking up. Aching, pain, burning, cold, itching, numbness - these are all transformations.
Is it itching or transformation? Is it pain or transformation? Is it aching or transformation? Is it dizziness or transformation? Beyond the nature of transformation and the nature of knowing, is there anything else to find?
Though this is taught, people don't believe it. Now they've reached the point of seeing with ordinary eyes. The concept of person doesn't disappear. When the concept of person remains, greed, hatred, and delusion arise, don't they? Yes, they do..."
